Norm Jacobs wrote:
> 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.
Okay, I'm going to say three things here:
1. I agree with Joerg that Ubuntu's decision (or possibly other
upstream sources) to name this "bsh" is probably a mistake, and unfortunate.
2. However, I agree with Darren and Norm, that the mistake/precedent is
already set by others (majority rule here), and changing the name will
probably just serve to increase confusion amongst our users.
3. Finally, +1 to the project as specified.
- Garrett
>
> -Norm
