Re: Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> 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:

	https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

compile and install and test "osh".

This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been 
added with Svr4:

-	multibyte character support. In the 1980s, the Bourne Shell was just
	8-bit clean.

-	job-control. If you do not call "jsh", or if you switch off jobcontrol
	via "set +m" in a job shell, you have the job-control related builtins
	but there is no processgroup management.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxx                    (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos