[geeks] SCO sues IBM (pure UNIX *BSD)

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On 9 Mar 2003, Koyote wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand how not having bash makes you more pure than
> having it in the core.

Because bash is not the POSIX shell.  In fact, it's not even a strict
superset of the POSIX shell.  The bad habit most Linux distributions
have of installing bash as /bin/sh is leading to a whole new generation
of shell scripts that start with "#!/bin/sh" and -will- -not- -run- on
a system with a compliant /bin/sh.

> That's almost like saying that no development over time is permitted.
> bash is probably the *most* pure unixlike shell in this case- more so
> than sh now.

So, why do -none- of the UNIX(tm) systems I run have it?  AIX, Solaris,
IRIX, and HP-UX seem to disagree with you.

> that would be like replacing ksh with pdksh, but I don't see how that
> would needfully be less Unixish.

pdksh irritates the hell out of me.  CTRL-V doesn't DTRT; it reports the
-version- of pdksh.  WTF?

-- 
Jonathan Patschke  *)  "They're like candy for your ass."
Thorndale, TX      (*                       --Doc Shipley