[CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?
galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu
Wed Apr 27 20:29:29 UTC 2016
On Wed, April 27, 2016 3:16 pm, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
> On 04/27/16 13:21, Pouar wrote:
>> On 04/27/16 08:49, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:
>>> On 04/26/16 21:13, 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.
>>> The various *BSD's have & use the actual Bourne shell ....
>> Which one? All the BSDs I know of use the Almquist Shell except for
>> OpenBSD which uses a patched version of the Public Domain Korn Shell
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS at centos.org
> NetBSD 6.1.5 uses the Bourne shell by default for root logins & uses it
> for the rc.d system. FreeBSD 9.3 Release has it installed because it is
> needed for the rc.d system. All I can vouch for ....
Yes. Here is excerpt from "man sh" (appears the same on FreeBSD 9.3 and
A sh command, the Thompson shell, appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX. It
was superseded in Version 7 AT&T UNIX by the Bourne shell, which inher-
ited the name sh.
This version of sh was rewritten in 1989 under the BSD license after the
Bourne shell from AT&T System V Release 4 UNIX.
> William A. Mahaffey III
> "The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
> ever devised by man."
> -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.
> 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