Re: Bourne shell deprecated?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



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 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, /bin/sh is a symlink to
>>>> /bin/bash...
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
> NetBSD 6.1.5 uses the Bourne shell by default for root logins & uses
> it for the rc.d system. FreeBSD 9.3 Release has it installed because
> it is needed for the rc.d system. All I can vouch for ....
>
>
I'm pretty sure that's a variant of the Almquist Shell*
*

-- 
Pouar

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux