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

[Jochen Kunz]

On 2003.03.10 06:10 Koyote wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand how not having bash makes you more pure than
> having it in the core.
As Jonathan already stated bash is no real POSIX shell. The usual Linux
has /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash. So you have a non POSIX /bin/sh. That
is not "nice". One of the things why I could say Linux is no "real"
Unix. It would be interresting to replace /bin/sh on a Linux system with
a real POSIX sh. NetBSD has a /bin/sh that tries to be as much POSIX
compliant as it can, i.e. non-compliance is considered as a bug and
there are always bugs... ;-)

> bash is probably the *most* pure unixlike
> shell in this case- more so than sh now.
Bash is a GNUism.

> that would be like replacing ksh with pdksh, but I don't see how that
> would needfully be less Unixish.
A Unix has to have a csh and a ksh in addition to sh. csh is inhirited
from the old BSD days. ksh, well. They needed a ksh and insted of
reinventing the ksh-wheel NetBSD imported the existing pdksh.
Integrating existing code instead if rewriting it is a good, old BSD
tradition.

AFAIK the "original and true" AT&T ksh is now free available. So if you
feel uncomfortable with NetBSDs ksh install the AT&T ksh. ;-)
--


tsch|_,
       Jochen

Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/