On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 04:42:10PM -0700, Will Yardley wrote:
| David T-G wrote:
| > Aha! I don't use BSD (yet), so I don't have access to that, or at
| > least hadn't thought to search the web for a copy of the freebsd sh
| > man page. My linux system doesn't even have a man page for sh,
| > preferring info or whatever it is, and Solaris doesn't mention it at
| > all.
|
| most linux distributions (all??) come with /bin/sh linked to bash.
| however bash is supposed to be able to do anything the bourne shell can
| do, no? if that's the case you should be able to do the same thing,
| probably in a pretty much identical way.
|
| it seems kind of silly to me - i rarely use the bourne shell but i like
| the fact that it's there in bsd systems (and that if i specify /bin/sh
| that's exactly what i'm getting).
|
| try checking the bash man pages.
Actually bash has a 'sh' mode of operation, where if you start bash
from /bin/sh, it will function quite different from /bin/bash. It
even has an init mode (try booting linux with 'init=/bin/sh' on the
LILO prompt (or from whatever linux loader you use)) but I've never
found any differences with normal bash (other then the PS1 prompt).
>From bash(1):
If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the
startup behavior of historical versions of sh as closely as
possible, while conforming to the POSIX standard as well.
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
