It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install. On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote: > > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > > > > > >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote: > > >>I'm sure most people here know about Dash in Debian. Have there > > >>been discussions about providing a more efficient shell in Centos > > >>for use with heavily invoked non-interactive scripts? > > >> > > >>Are there other people who have experience in this and can > > >>provide interesting guidance? > > >> > > >Why go to that extreme if you tell a script on line 1 which shell to > run it > > >will do so. > > >#!/bin/dash > > >or what ever shell you want it to run in. I always do that to make > sure that > > >the script runs as expected, if you leave it out the script will run in > > >whatever environment it currently is in. > > > > > > > I'm confused here, too, and this has been bugging me for some time: > > why sh, when almost 20 years ago, at places I've worked, production > > shell scripts went from sh to ksh. It was only after I got into the > > CentOS world in '09 that I saw all the sh scripts again. > > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > Unix, using ksh by default? > > > -- > Scott Robbins > PGP keyID EB3467D6 > ( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 ) > gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6 > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -- *Doug Eckert* *Technical Architect* *Global Business Technology* *Dow Jones* | *A News Corporation Company* P.O. Box 300 | Princeton NJ 08543-0300 (W) 609.520.4993 (C) 732.666.3681 *Email: **doug.eckert at dowjones.com* <alias at dowjones.com>