On Wed, April 27, 2016 3:16 pm, 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@centos.org 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 ....
Yes. Here is excerpt from "man sh" (appears the same on FreeBSD 9.3 and 10.3):
A sh command, the Thompson shell, appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX. It was superseded in Version 7 AT&T UNIX by the Bourne shell, which inher- ited the name sh.
This version of sh was rewritten in 1989 under the BSD license after the Bourne shell from AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX.
--
William A. Mahaffey III
"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war ever devised by man." -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++