similar to: Newbie CMS question

Hi, I''ve offered to make a web based studio booking system for the university I attended to replace their old pen and paper approach and I''m having some trouble deciding on the best way to organise the database. What will happen is the students (or tutors) will log in and be presented with a weekly calendar view of the studios, along with details of existing bookings. They

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 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

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,

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

On 12/19/17 19:55, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 12/19/2017 07:16 AM, Manish Jain wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am writing a book about Unix (Linux / FreeBSD) and my book needs >> documentation for TeamViewer13 running under Centos 7 (64-bit). >> >> Unfortunately, running TeamViewer does not get me a GUI -- the install >> went smoothly and teamviewerd daemon is

<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: > Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about > bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than > I remembered. If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

Manish Jain wrote: > > On 12/19/17 22:11, Manish Jain wrote: >> On 12/19/17 22:07, Jonathan Billings wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:54:36PM +0000, Manish Jain wrote: >>>> I uninstalled the old TV, and installed the version you indicated, but >>>> I >>>> get nothing at all: >>>> >>>> /home/bourne # teamviewer

It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote: > > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > > > > > >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote:

Dear all, During a recent package submission, we were highlighted that some lines in our configure script didn't follow the correct syntax. The lines looked like this: x=$(($y/10)) We were indicated at the time that this is because the statement does not use Bourne shell syntax, which is absolutely true, and also that the manual warns about this, which is true again. So far everything

On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with #!/bin/ksh at

>>>>> I?aki ?car writes: Same from here: in addition to what the standards say, it always pays to be defensive and check "Portable Shell Programming" in the Autoconf manual. Among other things, this says '$((EXPRESSION))' Arithmetic expansion is not portable as some shells (most notably Solaris 10 '/bin/sh') don't support it. motivating

Full_Name: Gordon Lack Version: 2.4.0 OS: OSF1 v5.1 Submission from: (NULL) (198.28.92.5) Changes to the bin/R front-end interlude script at 2.4.0 (cf: 2.2.0) have broken R on (Dec/Compaq/HP) OSF1. There are 3 occurrences of "${@}", but this is the incorrect syntax for adding $@, as on older Bourne shells this will add an empty (but present) parameter. The result is that the build

On 12/19/2017 02:57 PM, Manish Jain wrote: > > > On 12/20/17 01:45, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> Manish Jain wrote: >>> >>> On 12/19/17 22:11, Manish Jain wrote: >>>> On 12/19/17 22:07, Jonathan Billings wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:54:36PM +0000, Manish Jain wrote: >>>>>> I uninstalled the old TV, and

On 12/19/2017 03:57 PM, Manish Jain wrote: > > > On 12/20/17 01:45, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> Manish Jain wrote: >>> >>> On 12/19/17 22:11, Manish Jain wrote: >>>> On 12/19/17 22:07, Jonathan Billings wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 02:54:36PM +0000, Manish Jain wrote: >>>>>> I uninstalled the old TV, and

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

Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is > > no such maintained web page. > > I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it. I thought I don't need to make advertizing for

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.