On 8/2/16, John <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
In the days of Linux and /bin/sh being a link to bash
Would be worse if link was to csh (freebsd curiously use csh but only as default interactive root shell). Both defaults indoctrinate users poorly, at least for forming noninteractive work.
who needs posix sh(1) compatibility ..?
BSDs still have an actual Bourne shell without all the bashisms (it's picked up a couple but mainly just better keyboard handling).
For people serious about shell, cross system, unix, work they likely encounter, and why things are... at least a quick one time through the likes of these is in order... http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ash/ https://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/anthony/info/shell/csh.whynot-1.7.txt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_command_shells http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sh.html http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/test.html Being Bourne based, Bash isn't a bad interactive choice, so long as stuff people ship is some reasonable least common of ash / posix / bsd. You start putting associative arrays and brace expansion in that shit and some real SA is going well beyond postal on your ass.