similar to: Bourne shell deprecated?

On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >> >> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one >> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's >> all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the >> claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or

Hello all, On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote: > On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: > >> > >> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one > >> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's > >> all

On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: > On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >> >> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, >> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well >> that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to >> corroborate the claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or

On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote: > On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: >>> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, >>>> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well >>>> that's all news to me,

On 04/26/2016 07:21 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>> >>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one >>> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's >>> all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate

On 04/27/16 15:16, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote: >> On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: >>> On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: >>>> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>>>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, >>>>> one of the reasons being it

On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > On 04/26/16 21:13, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>> >>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, >>> one of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well >>> that's all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to

On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: > > Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one > of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's > all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the > claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways,

On 26/04/16 09:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: > Hello List, > > Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one > of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's all > news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the claim. > Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? > > Thanks, > Jack

Scott Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote: >> >> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know. >> > Yup. > >> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other *nix systems. > > Bash can run

>>> >>last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. >>> >> >>> >> >> > >> >The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell .... >> > >> > > Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for > OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell

Once upon a time, JJB <jack at internetguy.net> said: > Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It > did not have command substitution or other things we now take for > granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two > missing in history... Check the history here: https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo -- Chris Adams

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 03:32:49PM -0453, William A. Mahaffey III wrote: > > From NetBSD 6.1.5: > > > 4256EE1 # man sh ... > SH(1) > > NAME > sh -- command interpreter (shell) ... > > HISTORY > A sh command appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX. It was, however, > unmaintainable so we wrote this one. > The V1 shell was of course not

Hi All, Was wondering if anyone knows there are any separate rpms to be able to install a true bourne shell and not one linked to bash. Thanks in advance, Phil -- Manners are the unenforced standards of conduct which demonstrate that a person is proper, polite, and refined.

I?ve been trying to get the dd of an iso to a usb flash drive to work for CentOS 6.7. It is working with the CentOS 7 DVD1 iso (x64), but if I use the same process with 6.7 bin dvd1 iso or the 6.7 live dvd, the flash drive will not boot. I thought 6.x and forward could be done like this. -wes

>>> >The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell .... >>> > >>> > >> Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for >> OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell > > indeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part) > > HISTORY > A sh command, the Thompson

On 04/27/2016 05:20 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > While older versions of the Bourne Shell are not POSIX compliant, recent > versions only miss the feature "arithmetic expansion" and are otherwise > probably closer to POSIX than bash or dash. Note that "dash" does not support > multi-byte characters and thus cannot be certified for a full UNIX system but > only

On 04/27/16 14:19, John R Pierce wrote: > >>>> >>last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> > >>> >The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell .... >>> > >>> > >> Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for

On 04/27/16 15:18, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, JJB <jack at internetguy.net> said: >> Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It >> did not have command substitution or other things we now take for >> granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two >> missing in history... > Check the history here: > >

Hi all, Not sure if this is on topic or not. I'm trying to query an SNMP value from centos 6 and I get a bad response if I don't specify the MIB to use: 0 digimer at pulsar:~/anvil/striker$ snmpget -v2c -c public -m /home/digimer/Downloads/APC/AP7900/MIB/powernet421.mib 10.255.2.1 .1.3.6.1.2.1.2.2.1.6.2 RFC1213-MIB::ifPhysAddress.2 = Hex-STRING: 00 C0 B7 5F 8A 85 0 digimer at