Author Topic: wot no bash shell? (Read 2479 times)

Scott_Butler · « **on:** June 20, 2004, 09:21:58 pm »

Most people seem to be running the bash shell. I haved OZ 3.3.5 and seem to only have /bin/sh. Can bash be installed seperatly and if so, how?

Also, what benefits would running bash give me over sh ?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

lardman · « **Reply #1 on:** June 21, 2004, 05:10:44 am »

Command line completion (with tab) I\'d say, but I have command line completion already so perhaps it\'s actually bash not sh.

See whether it works for you.

Si

zxerx · « **Reply #2 on:** June 21, 2004, 05:30:11 am »

sh (the bourne SHell) is proprietry, bash (The Bourne Again SHell) is free. bash has a heap of additional features over sh, but because a lot of commercial systems only have sh and not bash, sh is still considered the standard. If your shell scripts are never going to come into contact with any corporate big iron, you don\'t need to worry what the differences are. For all things linux, there is only bash - sh is just a symlink to bash. (Of course, there are dozens of other shells you may wish to expore, csh, ksh, zsh, ash to name a few)

Now I don\'t know what is going on in OZ with sh - try sh --version and see what you get.

Mickeyl · « **Reply #3 on:** June 21, 2004, 06:08:53 am »

We use busybox/ash.

pgas · « **Reply #4 on:** June 21, 2004, 09:11:27 am »

sh is not considered the standard, it is the standard (posix)

News:

Author Topic: wot no bash shell? (Read 2479 times)