[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Pete Geenhuizen <pete at geenhuizen.net> wrote:

> Initially Bourne was used because it was typically a static binary, 
> because the boot process didn't have access to any shared libraries.  
> When that changed it became a bit of a moot point, and you started to 
> see other interpreters being used.

When dynamic linking was intruduced in 1988, people did kno know what we now 
know and provided sh, mv, tar, ifconfig and mount as statib binaries in "/sbin".

Since Solaris 10 we know better and there is no static binary anymore.

BTW: the real Bourne Shell is now 100% portable and enhanced since a longer 
time. If you like to test the real Bourne Shell, check the latest schilytools:

	https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

The Bourne Shell is also much faster than bash. In special on platforms like 
Cygwin, where Microsoft enforces extremly slow process creation.

> Even though Solaris started using ksh as the default user environment, 
> almost all of the start scrips were either bourne or bash scripts.  With 
> Bash having more functionality the scripts typically used the 
> environment that suited the requirements best.

There are no bash scripts on Solaris as bash has too many deviatioons from the 
standard.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                    (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'