* Sven Mascheck (2005-06-06 17:22 +0100)
>>>> [...] bash (an old version) in sh compatibility mode.
>>>> [...] using it interactively doesn't make sense as it's
>>>> outdated for many years.
>>> You're confusing the traditional Bourne shell with the
>>> "posix mode + historical startup" of bash: INVOCATION in bash(1).
>> I don't think I'm confusing anything.
> even better, you haven't tried:
>> (even if "sh" is just a symlink to bash).
> $ sh
> sh-2.05b$ set -o|grep posix
> posix on
>> And runnig sh interactively still makes no sense because you're
>> castrating yourself compared to the features that bash has.
> ... a double confusion:
> - bash is not castrated in posix mode,
> but according to the manual, posix mode means:
> "Change the behavior of bash where the default operation differs
> from the POSIX 1003.2 standard to match the standard"
> (that is, still providing all other bash features)
> - POSIX(.2 / SUSv3) is a current standard.
So invoking bash as "sh" is just a "shortcut" for "conform to POSIX
standard"? Well, that's strange. Compare to zsh: "Zsh tries to emulate
sh or ksh when it is invoked as sh or ksh respectively;"
Quote:> Your "outdated for many years", "castrating yourself" and
> notion of a plain "sh" usually is (at best) said confusion
> of traditional Bourne shell, POSIX(/Korn) shell and bash
> or bad advocacy without substance
Is the Bourne Shell actively developed? Does it have the many new
interactive features of modern shells like bash or zsh? Does it have
features for scripting like modern shells (arrays, etc.)?
Quoting the page you mention in your signature (bourne shell
"The Bourne shell would probably be in much wider interactive use
today, if it provided line editing (and a history mechanism)"
I'd call a shell without line editing or history mechanism "castrated"
or "functionality reduced" if you prefer that. Amen.
Quote:> or trolling [...]
Blubberdiblubb. One million dollar to the man who can reply in a
controversial thread without using this brainfart named