Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Norm Jacobs <Norm.Jacobs at sun.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>
>>> "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> My only small concern with this project is the name "bsh". ISTR being
>>>> on other systems where "bsh" meant the "Bourne Shell". It seems like
>>>> "beansh" might be a better name here to avoid possible confusion. But
>>>> if this is widely deployed on FOSS already using "bsh", then perhaps we
>>>> ought to leave the name as is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> "bsh" is used by my private shell for a much longer time (since 1984) than
>>> people started to use "bsh" for the Bourne Shell. This is why I use "bosh"
>>> for my extended Bourne Shell.
>>>
>>> Please use "beansh"
>>>
>> Forgive me for pointing out the obvious here, but /usr/bin/bsh on Fedora
>> and Ubuntu appear to be BeanShell (I didn't check anywhere else). Given
>> that this is a familiarity case, wouldn't it make sense to install it in
>> the familiar location and have 'bsh' do the familiar thing?
>>
>
> Do you like to copy this mistake?
>
Given the imperfection of our world, I'm going to side with what I
believe a majority of our customers will expect, so yes.
-Norm
