[CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?
galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu
Wed Apr 27 15:41:01 UTC 2016
On Tue, April 26, 2016 9:27 pm, Alice Wonder wrote:
> 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
>>> 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
>> [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
>> [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
> 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.
Nope. FreeBSD (and its clones like PC-BSD) use Bourne shell for startup
scripts. OpenBSD comes with Bourne shell as well (though they use ksh for
system scripts if I remember it correctly). Not dead and there is a reason
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
More information about the CentOS