>> If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the startup
>> behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as possible,
>> while conforming to the POSIX standard as well.
> Admittedly this leaves confusion in areas where Bourne and POSIX
> it's not well implemented; bash isn't very
> Bourne compatible even when run as "sh".
1. what exactly does "bourne compatible" mean?
It's about the basic language.
It's not about specifically traditional features.
Yes, _all_ bourne compatible shells (korn shell included)
are incompatible here. But this is usually considered a
feature, because the old behaviour is flawed in some way.
for a list of most traditional-only features.
2. what does "mimic sh" in the above mean
The most prominent exmaple of a traditional-only feature
is ^ being an alias for |. Certainly, no modern shell
should try to mimic this.
Except for the startup behaviour (profiles), bash doesn't
mimic traditional features. If you do read "info bashref"
(it's not in the man page), you'll see that only POSIX is
So please name name concrete, relevant POSIX incompatibilities.Quote:> Right now bash is neither POSIX nor Bourne compatible
But this is not related to Solaris anymore: