On 04/27/16 15:16, 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 >>>> /bin/bash... >>>> >>>> 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 >> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > 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 .... > > I'm pretty sure that's a variant of the Almquist Shell* * -- Pouar