On 2013-11-25 21:11:09 +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote: > > Although maybe we don't have to care about POSIX any more as long as > > we're not /bin/sh, who knows. I know a few people who are happily using > > fish (which sucks), but at least it shows that people don't necessarily > > care about POSIX semantics in their shell. > > Do these people really use fish as /bin/sh or do they use it as their > interactive shell? The former is _very_ scary, the latter is just a > matter of taste.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, I was trying to say that they don't use it as /bin/sh. I don't think any major POSIX-like distribution would pass init without a POSIX compliant /bin/sh, although I'm willing to be shown otherwise. > My personal opinion is that as /bin/sh only something POSIX compliant > makes sense, an interactive shell can be a bit more adventurous. On a POSIX system, yes. Otherwise, no. Unfortunately I think everyone here seems focussed on POSIX systems right now.
pgpIbm3qdexUG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
