On 04/26/2016 07:21 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 26/04/16 10:07 PM, John R Pierce wrote: >> On 4/26/2016 6:45 PM, Jack Bailey wrote: >>> >>> Today someone in a meeting claimed the Bourne shell is deprecated, one >>> of the reasons being it supposedly has security issues. Well that's >>> all news to me, and I cannot find anything online to corroborate the >>> claim. Is this true, is it a bash vs. Bourne FUD, or something else? >> >> there's no Bourne shell in CentOS anyways, /bin/sh is a symlink to >> /bin/bash... >> >> last OS I can think of with an actual Bourne shell was Solaris. > > ?? > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release > CentOS release 6.7 (Final) > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# which bash > /bin/bash > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/bash > -rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 885K Sep 22 2015 /bin/bash > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# which sh > /bin/sh > > [root at an-striker01 ~]# ls -lah /bin/sh > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 4 Mar 27 18:40 /bin/sh -> bash Yes, Red Hat and most (all?) GNU/Linux distributions have used bash as far back as I can remember. Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know. bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other *nix systems. Bourne is for all practical purposes dead.