[colug-432] Why Bourne Shell Compatible: Portability
chris at theclonchs.com
Wed Aug 10 13:20:05 EDT 2011
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:47:19 -0400, Rob Funk wrote:
> The actual Bourne shell doesn't even exist on any non-commercial
> since it's AT&T code. The closest we get is ash or dash, which were
> to be basic Bourne-compatible shells with no extra bells and
Makes sense. Too many years with Lucent have blurred many lines.
Thanks for the clarification. After a quick read-up I think I'm happier
with Debian's move to link to dash as it more closely aligns with my
> Then there are csh and tcsh, which were influential on bash but are
> different and incompatible.
Different enough that I've not attempted to get to know them...
More information about the colug-432