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

[Koyote]

.
> 
> Because bash is not the POSIX shell.  

Ah, and there is a requirement for 'unixness'. not necessarily one I
agree with, but one I can sink my teeth into. And I agree, by your
standards, bash is not the purest of unix shells.


>.  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.

Like many things Linux, it's not the fault of bash, or even strictly
linux, but the fault of people with no training or concern. these are
the same people who write 'portable unix' code that is only portable
between linux based OSen on x386 architecture.

> 
> > 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.

But, I thought you were using BSD4.x as your touchstone, not sysVr4?

> 
> > 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?

well, both ksh and pdksh have irritants for me, ones that I think
detract from the usability of a system. but... I don't know that I am
one to determine my comfort as a defining standard for 'unixness'. 

I'm *not* saying that yours isn't. you may have some very valid
reasoning- as you do for bash.

-C