[CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?

Wed Apr 27 02:27:26 UTC 2016
Alice Wonder <alice at domblogger.net>

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.