Hello List,
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?
Thanks, Jack
On 26/04/16 09:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
Hello List,
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?
Thanks, Jack
[Citation Needed]
There was the "Shell Shock" Vulnerability patched on the 24th of September 2014 Maybe this person was Misinformed after this incident. Microsoft and Ubuntu just announced BASH for Windows ( they called it Linux on Windows or something like that ).
On 27 April 2016 at 13:47, Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 26/04/16 09:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote:
Hello List,
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?
Thanks, Jack
[Citation Needed]
-- Digimer Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.ca/w/ What if the cure for cancer is trapped in the mind of a person without access to education? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
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.
On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, 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.
??
[root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh /bin/sh
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash
Same upstream on Fedora 23:
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three)
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash /bin/bash
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh /bin/sh
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bash
On 04/26/2016 07:21 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, 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.
??
[root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh /bin/sh
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash
Yes, Red Hat and most (all?) GNU/Linux distributions have used bash as far back as I can remember.
Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know.
bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other *nix systems.
Bourne is for all practical purposes dead.
On 4/26/2016 7:27 PM, Alice Wonder wrote:
bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other *nix systems.
when bash is invoked as /bin/sh, it reverts to more Bourne like behaviors in some circumstances where the default is not compatible.
Most of the script developers at my $job seem to prefer ksh for serious scripting, apparently its more consistent.
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote:
Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know.
Yup.
bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other *nix systems.
Bash can run Bourne, but not necessarily vice versa, which can be problematic if, say, moving a Linux script to a BSD or AIX box. I remember something I'd done which used, IIRC, $UID, without realizing it was a bashism, instead of using id -u.
On Tue, April 26, 2016 9:27 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
On 04/26/2016 07:21 PM, Digimer wrote:
On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, 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.
??
[root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh /bin/sh
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash
Yes, Red Hat and most (all?) GNU/Linux distributions have used bash as far back as I can remember.
Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know.
bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other *nix systems.
Bourne is for all practical purposes dead.
Nope. FreeBSD (and its clones like PC-BSD) use Bourne shell for startup scripts. OpenBSD comes with Bourne shell as well (though they use ksh for system scripts if I remember it correctly). Not dead and there is a reason for that.
Valeri
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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello all,
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, 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.
??
[root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh /bin/sh
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash
Same upstream on Fedora 23:
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three)
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash /bin/bash
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh /bin/sh
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bash
There seems to be a big confusion in this thread. The Bourne shell has gone long time ago. The Bourne-Again shell is bash (which is GNU software). Bash is not the Bourne shell.
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourne_shell
Regards,
On Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:08:10 +0200 wwp subscript@free.fr wrote:
Hello all,
On Tue, 26 Apr 2016 22:21:34 -0400 Digimer lists@alteeve.ca wrote:
On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, 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.
??
[root@an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 6.7 (Final)
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which bash /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash
[root@an-striker01 ~]# which sh /bin/sh
[root@an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash
Same upstream on Fedora 23:
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 23 (Twenty Three)
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which bash /bin/bash
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/bash -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1.1M Jan 11 06:02 /bin/bash
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# which sh /bin/sh
0 root@pulsar:/home/digimer# ls -lah /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Jan 11 06:02 /bin/sh -> bash
There seems to be a big confusion in this thread. The Bourne shell has gone long time ago. The Bourne-Again shell is bash (which is GNU software). Bash is not the Bourne shell.
Sorry if I wrote too fast: s/has gone/was born/. The Bourne shell seems to be still in use in FreeBSD.
Regards,
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 ....
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
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 ....
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 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 04/27/16 15:16, 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 ....
I'm pretty sure that's a variant of the Almquist Shell* *
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Pouar thepouar@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's a variant of the Almquist Shell
You would be correct. All of the BSDs and some GNU/Linux distributions use Almquist for sh if not using a symlink to bash or dash.
In fact, the first release of Slackware in 1993 had sh as a symlink to bash.
I'm looking at the source code for the Bourne shell as included with UNIX SVR4 (circa 1988) and it's obvious that the version which Sun Microsystems/Oracle shipped with Solaris under the CDDL is a direct decedent.
The license on the source code for the Bourne shell shipped with SVR4 clearly states:
"THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T"
Brandon Vincent
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
indeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part)
HISTORY 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.
AUTHORS This version of sh was originally written by Kenneth Almquist.
On 04/27/16 14:19, John R Pierce wrote:
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
indeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part)
HISTORY 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 BSDlicense after the Bourne shell from AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX.
AUTHORS This version of sh was originally written by Kenneth Almquist.
From NetBSD 6.1.5:
4256EE1 # man sh man: Formatting manual page... SH(1) General Commands Manual SH(1)
NAME sh -- command interpreter (shell)
SYNOPSIS sh [-aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [+aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [-o option_name] [+o option_name] [command_file [argument ...]] sh -c [-aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [+aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [-o option_name] [+o option_name] command_string [command_name [argument ...]] sh -s [-aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [+aCefnuvxIimqVEb] [-o option_name] [+o option_name] [argument ...]
DESCRIPTION sh is the standard command interpreter for the system. The current version of sh is in the process of being changed to conform with the POSIX 1003.2 and 1003.2a specifications for the shell. This version has many features which make it appear similar in some respects to the Korn shell, but it is not a Korn shell clone (see ksh(1)). Only features designated by POSIX, plus a few Berkeley extensions, are being incorporated into this shell. This man page is not intended to be a tutorial or a complete specification of the shell.
. . .
HISTORY A sh command appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX. It was, however, unmaintainable so we wrote this one.
BUGS Setuid shell scripts should be avoided at all costs, as they are a significant security risk.
PS1, PS2, and PS4 should be subject to parameter expansion before being displayed.
The characters generated by filename completion should probably be quoted to ensure that the filename is still valid after the input line has been processed.
NetBSD 6.1.5 October 4, 2011 NetBSD 6.1.5 4256EE1 #
There was/is nothing at the end w/ any more identifying info.
From FreeBSD 9.3R:
[root@kabini1, /etc, 3:22:38pm] 888 % man sh SH(1) FreeBSD General Commands Manual SH(1)
NAME sh -- command interpreter (shell)
SYNOPSIS sh [-/+abCEefhIimnPpTuVvx] [-/+o longname] [script [arg ...]] sh [-/+abCEefhIimnPpTuVvx] [-/+o longname] -c string [name [arg ...]] sh [-/+abCEefhIimnPpTuVvx] [-/+o longname] -s [arg ...]
DESCRIPTION The sh utility is the standard command interpreter for the system. The current version of sh is close to the IEEE Std 1003.1 (``POSIX.1'') spec- ification for the shell. It only supports features designated by POSIX, plus a few Berkeley extensions. This man page is not intended to be a tutorial nor a complete specification of the shell.
. . .
HISTORY 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.
AUTHORS This version of sh was originally written by Kenneth Almquist.
BUGS The sh utility does not recognize multibyte characters other than UTF-8. Splitting using IFS and the line editing library editline(3) do not rec- ognize multibyte characters.
FreeBSD 9.3 January 3, 2014 FreeBSD 9.3 [root@kabini1, /etc, 3:31:58pm] 889 %
So FreeBSD does indeed appear to use the Almquist shell.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 03:32:49PM -0453, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
From NetBSD 6.1.5:
4256EE1 # man sh
...
SH(1)
NAME sh -- command interpreter (shell)
...
HISTORY A sh command appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX. It was, however, unmaintainable so we wrote this one.
The V1 shell was of course not Bourne's.
However Bourne's code was consider "unmaintainable" as he was an algol coder, not a C coder. He had numerous macros defined to allow him to use his algol coding style with a C compiler.
jl
On 04/27/16 15:33, Jon LaBadie wrote:
The V1 shell was of course not Bourne's.
However Bourne's code was consider "unmaintainable" as he was an algol coder, not a C coder. He had numerous macros defined to allow him to use his algol coding style with a C compiler.
So *that's* what it is! I have a copy of the source (on paper). What a hoot! I thought he was trying to make C look like shell code.
Jack
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
indeed, the man for sh(1) on freebsd 10.3 says (in part)
HISTORY 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 BSDlicense after the Bourne shell from AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX.
Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It did not have command substitution or other things we now take for granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two missing in history...
Jack
On 4/27/2016 12:59 PM, JJB wrote:
Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It did not have command substitution or other things we now take for granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two missing in history...
this suggests the PWB/Mashey shell was pretty short lived... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWB_shell
derivatives of Unix Version 7 were about the first Unix version most people outside of a few universities ever saw, like I believe my first in depth exposure to Unix was 4.1BSD, on Dec VAX 11/780. I remember having to get a Unix/32V license from AT&T, then photocopy the label of the tape and fax it to Berkeley before we could get 4.1BSD from them due to licensing weirdness. I don't remember ever even mounting that AT&T tape.
Once upon a time, JJB jack@internetguy.net said:
Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It did not have command substitution or other things we now take for granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two missing in history...
Check the history here:
https://github.com/dspinellis/unix-history-repo
On 04/27/16 15:18, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, JJB jack@internetguy.net said:
Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It did not have command substitution or other things we now take for granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two missing in history...
Check the history here:
This history might be that of a particular lineage. CB UNIX and PWB UNIX existed in the gap between 1975 and 1979.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CB_UNIX
Jack
On Wed, 2016-04-27 at 15:39 -0700, JJB wrote:
On 04/27/16 15:18, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, JJB jack@internetguy.net said:
Interesting. Back in 1980 we called /bin/sh the Mashey shell. It did not have command substitution or other things we now take for granted. Bourne did that for us. So there's a version or two missing in history...
Check the history here:
This history might be that of a particular lineage. CB UNIX and PWB UNIX existed in the gap between 1975 and 1979.
PWB is the one I started with back in '77ish. Running on Dec 11/70.
When SCO's Unix, which had an IBM-compatible Cobol compiler available, became available I installed on PC and over time converted our Cobol development folks to compile, debug, test on the PCs and then install on mainframe through the PDP 11/70 emulating 3270 terminal into mainframe, IIRC. Maybe by then it was a VAX 11/780.
When Bourne's shell came around it was a big boost for me - added a lot.
<snip>
Bill
On 04/26/2016 06:45 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?
The Bourne shell is not POSIX conforming. It's not widely available. It was included in Solaris until 11, when it was replaced with a POSIX compatible sh.
It was affected by a security issue in 2014:
http://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-15053/year-2014/Heirl...
I think it's hard to argue that it's not deprecated.
-
Alice Wonder -
Bill Maltby (C4B) -
Brandon Vincent -
Chris Adams -
Digimer -
Gordon Messmer -
Jack Bailey -
JJB
-
John D -
John R Pierce -
Jon LaBadie -
Pouar -
Scott Robbins -
Valeri Galtsev -
William A. Mahaffey III -
wwp