[colug-432] Why Bourne Shell Compatible: Portability

[Chris Clonch]

 On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:47:19 -0400, Rob Funk wrote:
> The actual Bourne shell doesn't even exist on any non-commercial 
> Unix/Linux,
> since it's AT&T code. The closest we get is ash or dash, which were 
> intended
> to be basic Bourne-compatible shells with no extra bells and 
> whistles.

 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 
 view...
 
> Then there are csh and tcsh, which were influential on bash but are
> completely
> different and incompatible.

 Different enough that I've not attempted to get to know them...