[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Joerg Schilling
Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.deFri Apr 24 13:13:39 UTC 2015
- Previous message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Next message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: > > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular > > Unix, using ksh by default? > > Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell. > Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a > part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with > #!/bin/ksh at the start (including tools like "patchadd"). The basic system had very few scripts that required ksh. 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/'
- Previous message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Next message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list