[sf-lug] BASH vs DASH to SH vs DASH ?

[jim]

     I'm still confused.
     Once upon a time there was a binary
program named  sh  that was the Bourne
shell.
     In modern times the  sh  has morphed
from the name of a binary to a link that
points to some binary program.
     Because of history, the name  sh  is
associated with the posix specification.
So a  /bin/  directory might list ash
and/or bash and/or dash and/or ksh and/or
sh and/or zsh (and hopefully not csh or
tcsh).
     A long listing will likely show that
most shell names are names of regular
files and that  sh  is a link to one of
the other files. There's a good chance
that the file for which  sh  is a link
is a posix-compliant shell.

     So to compare BASH with DASH makes
sense to me and to compare SH with DASH
does not. BASH is a bloated shell of the
Bourne family and DASH is a learn and
elegant shell of the Bourne family. SH
is a name used to link to a
posix-compliant shell of the Bourne
family.

     I have a nagging feeling that I've
missed something. Yes?


On 08/09/2016 04:50 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Sujit K M (kmsujit at gmail.com):
>
>> I also find that SH implementation is more POSIX Compliant that BASH.
>> Also it can be symlinked to DASH. Initially SH seems to be linked with
>> BASH, But Debian Generally Links it to DASH.
> /bin/sh has been Dash on Debian since Debian 6 'squeeze', released 2011.
>
> _______________________________________________
> sf-lug mailing list
> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> Information about SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
>