[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de
Mon Apr 27 10:38:14 UTC 2015
<m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote:
> Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about
> bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than
> I remembered.
If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I
recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/
compile and install and test "osh".
This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been
added with Svr4:
- multibyte character support. In the 1980s, the Bourne Shell was just
8-bit clean.
- job-control. If you do not call "jsh", or if you switch off jobcontrol
via "set +m" in a job shell, you have the job-control related builtins
but there is no processgroup management.
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/'
More information about the CentOS
mailing list