On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 11:42 -0400, R P Herrold wrote: > On Tue, 12 May 2009, William L. Maltby wrote: > > > For widest possible coverage, something like bash should be considered. > > curious -- when coding under that criterion, I end up at: > /bin/sh > in my script's shebang ;) lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Apr 1 17:17 /bin/sh -> bash As it should be. In my experience, most admins set this to the preferred shell interpreter (csh, bash, ...). That, of course, leads to possible incompatibilities. In my shells, I use /bin/bash. This works most places if I'm targeting GNU systems. IMO, if you code shell to the lowest common denominator (avoiding very useful shell-specific syntax and functionality) you can achieve wide coverage. But then the level of knowledge needed goes up (must have familiarity with multiple shell interpreters - csh, bash, ksh, ...) so as to avoid shell specificity. Not many of us have been around long enough to have had exposure to those differences, and even if we have, how much have we forgotten? Reading the man pages to refresh oneself is such a drag! :-( > > -- Russ herrold > <snip sig stuff> -- Bill