Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 8, 2008 6:01 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, any changes to the existing shell, whether its outright replacement or otherwise need a lot of testing. I myself even created a patch to add support for export BLAH=FOO syntax to the current /bin/sh: http://icculus.org/~eviltypeguy/sh_export.patch Your patch is not OK as it would bypass consistency checks if you use export BLAH=FOO instead of BLAH=FOO. ...which is why I never tried to get it integrated. I'm not an expert on shell syntax. It was a hack for my own personal system :) Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Really, any changes to the existing shell, whether its outright replacement or otherwise need a lot of testing. I myself even created a patch to add support for export BLAH=FOO syntax to the current /bin/sh: http://icculus.org/~eviltypeguy/sh_export.patch Your patch is not OK as it would bypass consistency checks if you use export BLAH=FOO instead of BLAH=FOO. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Alan Hargreaves wrote: The functionality to change shell is in passwd, but there is a completely wrong check in there. See CR 6638715 Checks in passwd should be authorisation based, not uid based And of course the ancient RFE 1226020 *other* RFE: add chfn chsh commands to Solaris 2 (now if we could only get the people entering the Code for Freedom contest to do something simple but useful like that instead of correcting all our comment typos...) -- -Alan Coopersmith- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seriously; FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, and many others all provide a better /bin/sh... what we really need is a way for users to change their own shells without root privileges in /etc/passwd I would call this a bug in passwd(1). As the user us allowed to change his passwd, passwd(1) has the needed privileges to change /etc/passwd. There is no reason to forbid changing the shell as user if the new and the old shell are listed in getusershell(3). It worked with the chsh(1) on UCB... BTW: what is orcron(1)? It is in the SEE ALSO part of the passwd(1) man page... why would you want to change /bin/sh possibly breaking thousands of scripts many of which are critical and can't be changed? because you want something that is a better interactive shell? there are many of them already, zsh, bash, ksh93 and as a user you can pick any of them as a rule i leave my root using /bin/sh but you can easily use RBAC to create a root like user with a different shell Replacing /bin/sh by ksh not only causes problems, it reduces a possible choice Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The tools are available for you to find the bugs if you want to see them. It took me all of a few moments to put together these searches: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/search.do?process=1type=bugsortBy=relevancebugStatus=1-dispatchedperPage=10bugId=keyword=textSearch=category=shellsubcategory=bournesince= This contains really funny error reports: One claims a /bin/sh bug because /bin/sh is able to give localized error messages but bash is not http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/search.do?process=1type=bugsortBy=relevancebugStatus=3-acceptedperPage=10bugId=keyword=textSearch=category=shellsubcategory=bournesince= Some if these bug reports are bug reports against /bin/ksh and many others are just a result of missing knowledge about the shell. I stay with my statement: compared to bash, the bourne shell could be called bug free. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A modern shell, such as ksh93, has functionality and locale support that is near equivalent or superior to bash. Are you talking about the report against /bin/sh that claims a bug because /bin/sh _has_ locale support but bash has not? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing with multiple systems 1-6 are easily solved with changing root's default shell. 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do. Well, I did already explain that I know of no problem with /bin/sh being the bourne shell, but I know of many problems (in special with make file systems) on platforms that have bash in /bin/sh. - unkillable sub-makes that continue to run in the background after a foreground make has been aborted via ^C - not stopping the build process after an erreneous sub make from nested makes because of a not correclty working bash -ce command are the most annoing problems on systems with bash in /bin/sh. http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schillingftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 7, 2008 7:41 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seriously; FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, and many others all provide a better /bin/sh... what we really need is a way for users to change their own shells without root privileges in /etc/passwd I would call this a bug in passwd(1). As the user us allowed to change his passwd, passwd(1) has the needed privileges to change /etc/passwd. There is no reason to forbid changing the shell as user if the new and the old shell are listed in getusershell(3). it is a RFE in passwd(1), passwd -e is able to change a user shell as long as you're not using /etc/passwd to store the user database nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 4:14 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't anywhere near portable across systems. It's also not part of any standard, so how could it really? That doesn't excuse having a good standard shell for /bin/sh. What reason is there for the 'standard' shell to be named /bin/sh though? You didn't answer this one. You seem to think that 'bin'sh is the name of the 'default system shell', and therefore if it's desirable for the default system shell to be POSIX compliant, then /bin/sh has to be also. Your premise is false. the name /bin/sh is not annointed with any special posers to be any more important of a shell on a system than any other. It's just the traditional name for the 'bourne shell'. People have written millions of line s of script code that depends on the behaivior of the bourn shell being found at /bin/sh. You want to tell all of the users of that code 'Opps, sorry. This is progress.' instead of just using the standarized, portable, method for loacating a standards compliant shell at whatever path the system decides to install it. When there is a standards compliant shell at another name that will work, Don't know; don't care. All I know is that other platforms are moving that way and it can only be a good thing in the long-term. Only if the move is really a step forward. Linux put bash as /bin/sh because GNU didn't have another sheell at the time. Now, from posts in this thread, it appears some are looking to get away from 'bash' because it wasn't a good choice. I guess it was good we didn't follow linux's lead back then huh? Just because everyone is doing it doesn't make it good or right. And I don't aggree it's 'good' or 'right' to do the same thing just to be the same either. The long-term view is that other platforms will have a POSIX shell at #!/bin/sh and OpenSolaris, in my view, should have one as well to meet those changing market conditions. Changes to 'market conditions' are made by the customers, not the developers. Just because a developer makes a change does not mean his customers were asking for it. Here in this list we have heard from several Sun customers who are specificall asking for this not to happen. There was I think one (pother than you) who thought it was a good idea. Where is the loud call for this form the market? There is a mechanism in POSIX for a script to determine where on a system a POSIX shell is located. Any script author who wants to write his script once for all posix platforms should use that mechanism to make sure his script is run. *If they haven't done this, then they haven't written a POSIX portable script.* Trying to use software on a system other than what the developer intended is asking for problems. Obviously the developer didn't test it on these other platforms either. I disagree. You don't think developers should not test their code on all the platforms they want it to run on? You think you should have guarantees that a program from one platform will run on any other without change or testing? When I want that, I look at languages that run in a virtual machine environment. Not Shell scripts. Given that there is no standard for how /bin/sh should work, it's possible that those scripts even take advantage of non-standard differences of the /bin/sh, and that they still won't work on strictly POSIX compliant /bin/sh that doesn't also emulate the other behaviors of the /bin/sh sheel they written for You missed what I really said: Not only will scripts that work today break. But all those scripts you're hoping to make just magically work will probably still need work! Some things become standards because the market adopts them. No. Standards are things that a product or porogram can be tested against and verified to meet. Not every standard comes about as the result of a committee; some come about by changes in the market. Maybe in the beginning, but they are documented, considered, revised, commented on. etc. before becoming standards. They're not created just from shear critical mass. If these scripts will magically start working when /bin/sh is ksh93 (which I doubt) then they'll also start working if the users edit them to start with #!/bin/ksh. And sinve that is (more?) standards compliant,that should still work on the platforms the scripts already work on. That is not really a practical option in the long term. The only practical option long term is to start writing portable scripts using standards that platforms and programs can be
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:53:04 -0600 Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008 12:42 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :) Oh wait...you were talking about Solaris ;) I think this is too harsh. If you were working on HP-UX, you'd find that the OS is even more rigid in not changing anything than Solaris. Solaris is almost ultra-liberal in that respect. Except HP-UX is dead/dormant for all practical purposes. HP is on the .^ That's pretty funny. Upon what facts do you base this assertion? GNU/Linux bandwagon now. Yeah, and we see how well that's be working out for them. Hence HP-UX still powers the big enterprise stuff that matters most. The GNU/Linux stuff is more so the marketroids have that availability for clients who've got Linux stuck in their heads. -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :) Oh wait...you were talking about Solaris ;) I think this is too harsh. If you were working on HP-UX, you'd find that the OS is even more rigid in not changing anything than Solaris. Solaris is almost ultra-liberal in that respect. IRIX was the same way. Except, it was somehow so ingenously designed, that when the sgi engineers brough in changes, they managed to bring in new functionality without breaking existing functionality. For example, they managed to completely redising the ABI, the Application Binary Interface, and go from O32 to N32 without breaking or preventing the O32 stuff to function. If you're into kernel engineering, then you know, that is no small feat. So I think that, in comparison to his peers, Solaris is quite liberal with changes. Sometimes, even too liberal. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 7, 2008 1:45 PM, Ken Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 12:53:04 -0600 Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008 12:42 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :) Oh wait...you were talking about Solaris ;) I think this is too harsh. If you were working on HP-UX, you'd find that the OS is even more rigid in not changing anything than Solaris. Solaris is almost ultra-liberal in that respect. Except HP-UX is dead/dormant for all practical purposes. HP is on the .^ That's pretty funny. Upon what facts do you base this assertion? HP's own press releases, failing support of HP-UX according to some of their customers, and their push for GNU/Linux? Anyway, we're way offtopic at this point. I digress. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Except HP-UX is dead/dormant for all practical purposes. HP is on the GNU/Linux bandwagon now. While it might be true that hp is on the Linux bandwagon now, HP-UX hardware still makes 17% of the overall hp revenue, and, I told you already, HP-UX is not dead but being actively worked on. You just aren't flowing in those circles, and since HP-UX is a closed OS, people think nothing's going on with it. Admit it, we have grown spoiled by the transparency in Solaris development. The Solaris engineers have really been wonderful to us in that respect. Though I admit it is difficult to find a compromise. Indeed; for every good (system) engineer, the dilemma is: how do I add new functionality without breaking existing one? It is not a trivial problem to solve. In fact, sometimes it can be extremely hard. And sometimes it is even harder to design a system which will scale such, that it will be extensible and forward compatible. Those are the hardest systems to design. And they require a tremendous amount of experience... and insight. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 7, 2008 10:42 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 4:14 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't anywhere near portable across systems. It's also not part of any standard, so how could it really? That doesn't excuse having a good standard shell for /bin/sh. What reason is there for the 'standard' shell to be named /bin/sh though? You didn't answer this one. It should be obvious. You seem to think that 'bin'sh is the name of the 'default system shell', and therefore if it's desirable for the default system shell to be POSIX compliant, then /bin/sh has to be also. It is, in practice. Your premise is false. the name /bin/sh is not annointed with any special posers to be any more important of a shell on a system than any other. It's just the traditional name for the 'bourne shell'. It is, in practice. While I would love to be able to force every other developer on every other platform to get the concept of explicitly name the shell you want; that is unrealistic. What I can do, however, is make it so that /bin/sh has a sane default. People have written millions of line s of script code that depends on the behaivior of the bourn shell being found at /bin/sh. You want to tell all of the users of that code 'Opps, sorry. This is progress.' instead of just using the standarized, portable, method for loacating a standards compliant shell at whatever path the system decides to install it. Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :) Oh wait...you were talking about Solaris ;) Only if the move is really a step forward. Eye of the beholder. I guess it was good we didn't follow linux's lead back then huh? Yep; but it seems pretty safe to follow a choice of having a POSIX shell, yes? Changes to 'market conditions' are made by the customers, not the developers. Just because a developer makes a change does not mean his customers were asking for it. Here in this list we have heard from several Sun customers who are specificall asking for this not to happen. There was I think one (pother than you) who thought it was a good idea. Where is the loud call for this form the market? Customers have to use what developers produce. I disagree. You don't think developers should not test their code on all the platforms they want it to run on? You think you should have guarantees that a program from one platform will run on any other without change or testing? No, I think users are often in the unenviable position of having to deal with what they get. Some things become standards because the market adopts them. No. Standards are things that a product or porogram can be tested against and verified to meet. Not in practice. Behold, the Internet Explorer behemoth which has become a standard unto itself :) Not every standard comes about as the result of a committee; some come about by changes in the market. Maybe in the beginning, but they are documented, considered, revised, commented on. etc. before becoming standards. They're not created just from shear critical mass. Really? I think Internet Explorer and Netscape proved that wrong. The only practical option long term is to start writing portable scripts You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. We can't force everyone else to do things our way; we must adapt to the majority way where possible. Not our way. The POSIX way. POSIX says nothing about /bin/sh :) *Some*, but not all, are. I meant incompatible with each other. Not incompatible with POSIX. I As I said before, *some*, but not all are. don't think, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong that any shell that has true Bourne shell behavior on any platform will meet the requirements of a POSIX shell. /bin/sh, on Solaris, currently, is not a POSIX-compliant shell. The Bourne shell, in general, is not POSIX compliant either. POSIX compliant shells are about 95% upward compatible with the Bourne Shell, according to HP. Is /bin/sh the tradition location/name of the Bourne Shell? Yes. On some platforms. No. Traditionally it is the location of the bourne shell. period. That some platform put something else there just to have something there (becuase they didn't have to have something there.) is irrelevant. Again, tradition is dependent on platform. At least with a POSIX shell for /bin/sh, there is a far better chance of getting scripts written by third parties to work. No there's not. More than just the shell needs to be POSIX. The whole I disagree. As matter of fact setting up your enviroment to
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 7, 2008 9:59 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The long-term view is that other platforms will have a POSIX shell at #!/bin/sh and OpenSolaris, in my view, should have one as well to meet those changing market conditions. How about running the following test on various platforms: /bin/sh -c 'foo=Bourne-style; echo Korn-style | read foo; eval echo $foo' and report the results to us? I said long-term view; checking the results today isn't going to mean much. Besides, I only use Windows and Solaris at home at this point :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 4:14 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't anywhere near portable across systems. It's also not part of any standard, so how could it really? That doesn't excuse having a good standard shell for /bin/sh. What reason is there for the 'standard' shell to be named /bin/sh though? When there is a standards compliant shell at another name that will work, Don't know; don't care. All I know is that other platforms are moving that way and it can only be a good thing in the long-term. The long-term view is that other platforms will have a POSIX shell at #!/bin/sh and OpenSolaris, in my view, should have one as well to meet those changing market conditions. Trying to use software on a system other than what the developer intended is asking for problems. Obviously the developer didn't test it on these other platforms either. I disagree. Given that there is no standard for how /bin/sh should work, it's possible that those scripts even take advantage of non-standard differences of the /bin/sh, and that they still won't work on strictly POSIX compliant /bin/sh that doesn't also emulate the other behaviors of the /bin/sh sheel they written for. Some things become standards because the market adopts them. Not every standard comes about as the result of a committee; some come about by changes in the market. If these scripts will magically start working when /bin/sh is ksh93 (which I doubt) then they'll also start working if the users edit them to start with #!/bin/ksh. And sinve that is (more?) standards compliant, that should still work on the platforms the scripts already work on. That is not really a practical option in the long term. We can't force everyone else to do things our way; we must adapt to the majority way where possible. Just as the UNIX certification has become largely irrelevant in today's market (though is still valuable to certain parts of it). Are different implementations of the Bourne Shell incompatible? Yes. *Some*, but not all, are. Is /bin/sh the tradition location/name of the Bourne Shell? Yes. On some platforms. At least with a POSIX shell for /bin/sh, there is a far better chance of getting scripts written by third parties to work. Only if they were written to only use strictly POSIX syntax. And if that's the case then they should also wrtie tehm to use the things the POSIX standard specifies in order to find the POSIX shell they want to run in. ...and there will be a better chance of that happening as time goes on. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 7, 2008 5:10 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A modern shell, such as ksh93, has functionality and locale support that is near equivalent or superior to bash. Are you talking about the report against /bin/sh that claims a bug because /bin/sh _has_ locale support but bash has not? I am not going to do the research for you. Roland has already posted about many of the issues that the various shells have. There are various bugs filed under the bourne shell category on bugs.opensolaris.org. You can argue all you want, but the point is that the current /bin/sh is unmaintained and broken in one way or another, and provides a very poor user experience. The details are meaningless at this point since the mountain of evidence that it is unsuitable speaks for itself. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The long-term view is that other platforms will have a POSIX shell at #!/bin/sh and OpenSolaris, in my view, should have one as well to meet those changing market conditions. How about running the following test on various platforms: /bin/sh -c 'foo=Bourne-style; echo Korn-style | read foo; eval echo $foo' and report the results to us? Suse 10.0: Bourne-style Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 7, 2008 12:42 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, they have, and what's why it needs to be changed :) Oh wait...you were talking about Solaris ;) I think this is too harsh. If you were working on HP-UX, you'd find that the OS is even more rigid in not changing anything than Solaris. Solaris is almost ultra-liberal in that respect. Except HP-UX is dead/dormant for all practical purposes. HP is on the GNU/Linux bandwagon now. IRIX is definitely dead. So I think that, in comparison to his peers, Solaris is quite liberal with changes. Sometimes, even too liberal. ...and most people believe it isn't liberal enough in certain areas. When it comes to the kernel, and base system libraries, I'm all for stability. The rest of the system must be more open to change. Though I admit it is difficult to find a compromise. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 7, 2008 1:08 AM, Ken Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do you have any actual enterprise systems admin experience? And if so, I'd be curious as to what platforms. Or is your role more primarily along the lines of Open/Solaris evangelist? Just curious so I can understand where you're coming from a bit better. We're discussing shells; not me. In my opinion /bin/sh should be /bin/sh (bourne), no if's ands or buts about it. Even casual newbie script writer knows to specify the she-bang shell at start of script. That's what provides consistent behavior. The portability across platforms issue arise because platform A may put ksh93 in /usr/local/bin/ksh93, while platform B has it in /bin/ksh93, etc. There are common workarounds for this type of issue that have been around for decades. Platforms must change to meet market expectations and reality. The reality is that just about every other platform has a better shell that is linked as /bin/sh. Regardless of what you or I think, it is up to Sun what they decide to do with /bin/sh. As for me, and any distribution projects I will be involved with, I will push for some sanity in dumping unmaintained decades-old shells that don't meet realistic expectations. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
The functionality to change shell is in passwd, but there is a completely wrong check in there. See CR 6638715 Checks in passwd should be authorisation based, not uid based Which I logged a few weeks back. Back onto the Let's replace /bin/sh with insert my favourite shell thread, ... The bit that everyone putting forward this argument seems to overlook is the sheer number of scripts in ON that are written for the bourne shell. Each and every one of these would need to be verified against the new shell. We are not talking a handful of scripts here. This would be a monumental task. So far I have seen people proposing the change, but no volunteers to do this verification. It won't do itself folks. If we are going to do something, then we need to look at the *whole* job, not parts of it. Regards, Alan Hargreaves. Joerg Schilling wrote: Ignacio Marambio Catán [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seriously; FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, and many others all provide a better /bin/sh... what we really need is a way for users to change their own shells without root privileges in /etc/passwd I would call this a bug in passwd(1). As the user us allowed to change his passwd, passwd(1) has the needed privileges to change /etc/passwd. There is no reason to forbid changing the shell as user if the new and the old shell are listed in getusershell(3). It worked with the chsh(1) on UCB... BTW: what is orcron(1)? It is in the SEE ALSO part of the passwd(1) man page... why would you want to change /bin/sh possibly breaking thousands of scripts many of which are critical and can't be changed? because you want something that is a better interactive shell? there are many of them already, zsh, bash, ksh93 and as a user you can pick any of them as a rule i leave my root using /bin/sh but you can easily use RBAC to create a root like user with a different shell Replacing /bin/sh by ksh not only causes problems, it reduces a possible choice Jörg -- Alan Hargreaves - http://blogs.sun.com/tpenta Staff Engineer (Kernel/VOSJEC/Performance) Systems Technical Support Centre Sun Microsystems ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 7, 2008 9:16 PM, Alan Hargreaves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The bit that everyone putting forward this argument seems to overlook is the sheer number of scripts in ON that are written for the bourne shell. Each and every one of these would need to be verified against the new shell. We are not talking a handful of scripts here. This would be a monumental task. So far I have seen people proposing the change, but no volunteers to do this verification. It won't do itself folks. If we are going to do something, then we need to look at the *whole* job, not parts of it. I haven't over looked it. As far as I know, that testing has already been started. Roland has certainly been involved: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=142 http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=442 I don't think folks realise just how much work Roland has already done towards this goal. I'm sure he would welcome help though for those parties that are proficient in the relevant areas. Really, any changes to the existing shell, whether its outright replacement or otherwise need a lot of testing. I myself even created a patch to add support for export BLAH=FOO syntax to the current /bin/sh: http://icculus.org/~eviltypeguy/sh_export.patch Cheers, -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
[osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ultimately, /sbin/sh is an unacceptable shell in a modern environment for a variety of reasons. It isn't even POSIX compliant, and the base system shell should be. POSIX does not deal with path names and thus does not require that /bin/sh is POSIX compliant. What do path names have to do with the shell command language? Please try to understand how POSIX works POSIX requires a POSIX compliant shell to be available if ou type sh after you typed: PATH=`getconf PATH` POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about /bin/sh. I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell. I don't. All I care about is that the default shell used by root, etc. is: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant 2) Buggy 3) Provides a poor user experience 4) Lacks proper internationalization support 5) Reflects poorly on Solaris 6) Hasn't been actively maintained 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing with multiple systems ...I could think of others, but the point is that there are better options available. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about /bin/sh. I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell. I don't. All I care about is that the default shell used by root, etc. is: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd 2) Buggy What bugs? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ultimately, /sbin/sh is an unacceptable shell in a modern environment for a variety of reasons. It isn't even POSIX compliant, and the base system shell should be. POSIX does not deal with path names and thus does not require that /bin/sh is POSIX compliant. What do path names have to do with the shell command language? Please try to understand how POSIX works POSIX requires a POSIX compliant shell to be available if ou type sh after you typed: PATH=`getconf PATH` POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about /bin/sh. I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell. I don't. All I care about is that the default shell used by root, etc. is: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant 2) Buggy 3) Provides a poor user experience 4) Lacks proper internationalization support 5) Reflects poorly on Solaris 6) Hasn't been actively maintained 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing with multiple systems ...I could think of others, but the point is that there are better options available. +1 I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell Bruno ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Bruno Jargot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell This is nothing to congrat as this change introduces a lot of unwanted incompatibilities. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with when they login as, or su to root, and the other group seems to care more about scripts that use #!/bin/sh running correctly, then maybe, just maybe (dare I say it?) the solution is to just make the default passwd entry for root specify /bin/ksh (or ksh93 if they aren't the same?) That seems to cover most if not all of the concerns I've heard voiced, unless I missed something. Personally, when I work as 'root' I automatically get the shell from my own account, not root's so this change doesn't affect me much. -Kyle ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Jargot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell This is nothing to congrat as this change introduces a lot of unwanted incompatibilities. Unless you can detail all of those specific incompatibilities, your comments will be dismissed as hand waving. In other words, beyond a few small examples I've seen, I have yet to hear any real details of incompatibility beyond hypothetical situations. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with when they login as, or su to root, and the other group seems to care more about scripts that use #!/bin/sh running correctly, then maybe, just maybe (dare I say it?) the solution is to just make the default passwd entry for root specify /bin/ksh (or ksh93 if they aren't the same?) That seems to cover most if not all of the concerns I've heard voiced, unless I missed something. Personally, when I work as 'root' I automatically get the shell from my own account, not root's so this change doesn't affect me much. The issue doesn't have to do with which default shell the user has; It has to do with what shell is used when a script is executed that has #!/bin/sh at the top. For system administrators that have to maintain software for a non-heterogeneous environment, it is one more thing they have to deal with. Ensuring that #!/bin/sh was a POSIX-compliant shell on the majority of UNIX and UNIX-like environments would go a long way towards easing administrative and development pain for many individuals. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Jargot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell This is nothing to congrat as this change introduces a lot of unwanted incompatibilities. Someone had the guts to stand up against the ultraconservative 'backwards compatibility is our religion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opensolaris cannot afford such Bourne shell extravaganza anymore Bruno ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Bruno Jargot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell This is nothing to congrat as this change introduces a lot of unwanted incompatibilities. Someone had the guts to stand up against the ultraconservative 'backwards compatibility is our religion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opensolaris cannot afford such Bourne shell extravaganza anymore OpenSolaris cannot afford headless changes. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Jargot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell This is nothing to congrat as this change introduces a lot of unwanted incompatibilities. Someone had the guts to stand up against the ultraconservative 'backwards compatibility is our religion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opensolaris cannot afford such Bourne shell extravaganza anymore OpenSolaris cannot afford headless changes. I do not think this change is headless Bruno ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) Buggy What bugs? Take your pick from bugs.opensolaris.org. Notably, there are problems with: 1) certain terminals 2) locale support, etc. Sorry, but unless you are able to explain problems, I ned to asume that you don't know what you are talking about. Why should sh have problems with certain terminals? What do you understand by locale support. Writing unspecified claims does not allow to have a fact based discussion. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 12:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) Buggy What bugs? Take your pick from bugs.opensolaris.org. Notably, there are problems with: 1) certain terminals 2) locale support, etc. Sorry, but unless you are able to explain problems, I ned to asume that you don't know what you are talking about. Why should sh have problems with certain terminals? What do you understand by locale support. Writing unspecified claims does not allow to have a fact based discussion. Joerg, look at the bug database. It is pointless for me to restate bugs that have already been recorded. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 11:39 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about /bin/sh. I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell. I don't. All I care about is that the default shell used by root, etc. is: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd 2) Buggy What bugs? Take your pick from bugs.opensolaris.org. Notably, there are problems with: 1) certain terminals 2) locale support, etc. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with when they login as, or su to root, and the other group seems to care more about scripts that use #!/bin/sh running correctly, then maybe, just maybe (dare I say it?) the solution is to just make the default passwd entry for root specify /bin/ksh (or ksh93 if they aren't the same?) That seems to cover most if not all of the concerns I've heard voiced, unless I missed something. Personally, when I work as 'root' I automatically get the shell from my own account, not root's so this change doesn't affect me much. The issue doesn't have to do with which default shell the user has; It has to do with what shell is used when a script is executed that has #!/bin/sh at the top. For system administrators that have to maintain software for a non-heterogeneous environment, it is one more thing they have to deal with. I think you mean 'non-homogeneous'. ;) Otherwise you'd have no problems because you'd have no different platforms. If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems, since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have feature, and behaviour differences to work around. -Kyle Ensuring that #!/bin/sh was a POSIX-compliant shell on the majority of UNIX and UNIX-like environments would go a long way towards easing administrative and development pain for many individuals. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems, since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have feature, and behaviour differences to work around. And on Linux, you have _real_ problems bacause of the fact that /bin/sh is bash and because bash illegally does jobcontrol with /bin/sh -c command, causing really annoying bugs with nested make(1) calls unless the make source contains a workaround for the bug. There are many other problems in bash Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but unless you are able to explain problems, I ned to asume that you don't know what you are talking about. Why should sh have problems with certain terminals? What do you understand by locale support. Writing unspecified claims does not allow to have a fact based discussion. Joerg, look at the bug database. It is pointless for me to restate bugs that have already been recorded. If you cannot name bug id's we need to stop here and conclude there are no problems with sh. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 12:30 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with when they login as, or su to root, and the other group seems to care more about scripts that use #!/bin/sh running correctly, then maybe, just maybe (dare I say it?) the solution is to just make the default passwd entry for root specify /bin/ksh (or ksh93 if they aren't the same?) That seems to cover most if not all of the concerns I've heard voiced, unless I missed something. Personally, when I work as 'root' I automatically get the shell from my own account, not root's so this change doesn't affect me much. The issue doesn't have to do with which default shell the user has; It has to do with what shell is used when a script is executed that has #!/bin/sh at the top. For system administrators that have to maintain software for a non-heterogeneous environment, it is one more thing they have to deal with. I think you mean 'non-homogeneous'. ;) Otherwise you'd have no problems because you'd have no different platforms. Yeah, sorry. If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems, since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have feature, and behaviour differences to work around. Many Linux distributions are starting to shift towards making /bin/sh a POSIX one; Debian I believe was mentioned in passing about this particular topic. Maintaining something broken in the name of continuing broken-ness doesn't seem like a good idea to me :) -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 12:47 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems, since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have feature, and behaviour differences to work around. And on Linux, you have _real_ problems bacause of the fact that /bin/sh is bash and because bash illegally does jobcontrol with /bin/sh -c command, causing really annoying bugs with nested make(1) calls unless the make source contains a workaround for the bug. There are many other problems in bash Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 12:49 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, but unless you are able to explain problems, I ned to asume that you don't know what you are talking about. Why should sh have problems with certain terminals? What do you understand by locale support. Writing unspecified claims does not allow to have a fact based discussion. Joerg, look at the bug database. It is pointless for me to restate bugs that have already been recorded. If you cannot name bug id's we need to stop here and conclude there are no problems with sh. Didn't you reprimand someone the other day for not reading the SchilliX readme? The tools are available for you to find the bugs if you want to see them. It took me all of a few moments to put together these searches: http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/search.do?process=1type=bugsortBy=relevancebugStatus=1-dispatchedperPage=10bugId=keyword=textSearch=category=shellsubcategory=bournesince= http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/search.do?process=1type=bugsortBy=relevancebugStatus=3-acceptedperPage=10bugId=keyword=textSearch=category=shellsubcategory=bournesince= ... I could go on, but what would be the point? There are at least 60-70 bugs that I've found just looking through those pages. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
1) *NOT* POSIX compliant 2) Buggy 3) Provides a poor user experience 4) Lacks proper internationalization support 5) Reflects poorly on Solaris 6) Hasn't been actively maintained 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing with multiple systems 1-6 are easily solved with changing root's default shell. 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do. Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with when they login as, or su to root, and the other group seems to care more about scripts that use #!/bin/sh running correctly, then maybe, just maybe (dare I say it?) the solution is to just make the default passwd entry for root specify /bin/ksh (or ksh93 if they aren't the same?) That seems to cover most if not all of the concerns I've heard voiced, unless I missed something. Personally, when I work as 'root' I automatically get the shell from my own account, not root's so this change doesn't affect me much. Same here. Perhaps change su to behave that way, optionally, for admins? Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
I think you mean 'non-homogeneous'. ;) Otherwise you'd have no problems because you'd have no different platforms. If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems, since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have feature, and behaviour differences to work around. Yeah, I don't think this fixes anything there except if people know how to program to the POSIX shell which few people do. So if you really write substantial scripts and don't know how to do that in the least Common Denominator, then perhaps shell programming is not for you (so use something else like python or perl) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 1:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do. I don't see why 7 isn't an option, even if it does cause *some* degree of break in compatibility. I think the problems caused by #!/bin/sh *not* being a decent shell are greater than what little value there is in keeping it. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing with multiple systems 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do. FYI Ubuntu uses dash as /bin/sh and Suse will use dash in the future. ksh93 has been discussed but it needs to be licensed as LGPL or GPL before Suse can use ksh93 as /bin/sh. Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 12:30 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:59 AM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant If you have problems with that, you may modify /etc/passwd Since it seems that one group cares more about what they end up with when they login as, or su to root, and the other group seems to care more about scripts that use #!/bin/sh running correctly, then maybe, just maybe (dare I say it?) the solution is to just make the default passwd entry for root specify /bin/ksh (or ksh93 if they aren't the same?) That seems to cover most if not all of the concerns I've heard voiced, unless I missed something. Personally, when I work as 'root' I automatically get the shell from my own account, not root's so this change doesn't affect me much. The issue doesn't have to do with which default shell the user has; It has to do with what shell is used when a script is executed that has #!/bin/sh at the top. For system administrators that have to maintain software for a non-heterogeneous environment, it is one more thing they have to deal with. I think you mean 'non-homogeneous'. ;) Otherwise you'd have no problems because you'd have no different platforms. Yeah, sorry. If linux is one of your platforms though, then you still have problems, since /bin/sh is bash on there, and not ksh93, and you'll still have feature, and behaviour differences to work around. Many Linux distributions are starting to shift towards making /bin/sh a POSIX one; Debian I believe was mentioned in passing about this particular topic. Ubuntu uses dash and Suse will use dash in the future Maintaining something broken in the name of continuing broken-ness doesn't seem like a good idea to me :) +1 Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On 2/6/08, Bruno Jargot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/6/08, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:23 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 11:08 AM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ultimately, /sbin/sh is an unacceptable shell in a modern environment for a variety of reasons. It isn't even POSIX compliant, and the base system shell should be. POSIX does not deal with path names and thus does not require that /bin/sh is POSIX compliant. What do path names have to do with the shell command language? Please try to understand how POSIX works POSIX requires a POSIX compliant shell to be available if ou type sh after you typed: PATH=`getconf PATH` POSIX does _not_ deal with PATH names and thus does not say anything about /bin/sh. I know that. You were assuming that I cared that POSIX said whether /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell. I don't. All I care about is that the default shell used by root, etc. is: 1) *NOT* POSIX compliant 2) Buggy 3) Provides a poor user experience 4) Lacks proper internationalization support 5) Reflects poorly on Solaris 6) Hasn't been actively maintained 7) Continues to cause issues for users and developers when dealing with multiple systems ...I could think of others, but the point is that there are better options available. +1 I think we should congratulate the person who had the guts to change /sbin/sh to ksh93 in Indiana. There is no point to turn Opensolaris into the last stronghold of the Bourne shell while everyone else moved to a POSIX shell +1 Josh ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. bash e.g. ignores -e under some conditions. This results in nested make(1) calls that loop over lists not to abort on make errors. Check Google for bugreports and you will find that Linux people claim this is not a bash bug. If you like to discuss your claim, we first need to select only those people who know what a shell bug is. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
FYI Ubuntu uses dash as /bin/sh and Suse will use dash in the future. ksh93 has been discussed but it needs to be licensed as LGPL or GPL before Suse can use ksh93 as /bin/sh. Dash? That's a new one (and a brand of detergent for washing machines) Why not gosh? (Which would be the name of the be-all, end-all of shell's: God's Own Shell) Casper ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 1:45 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI Ubuntu uses dash as /bin/sh and Suse will use dash in the future. ksh93 has been discussed but it needs to be licensed as LGPL or GPL before Suse can use ksh93 as /bin/sh. Dash? That's a new one (and a brand of detergent for washing machines) Why not gosh? (Which would be the name of the be-all, end-all of shell's: God's Own Shell) That, would be a truly great name :) Yes, dash is one of the many reasons I would like to see /bin/sh be a POSIX shell. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. How is that an 'Exactly!'??? If they don't understand what it means to be POSIX? and they don't care if there are bugs, or care why things are the way they are, How will they notice that you've given them these things they don't care or know enough to recognize? How will it make them more at home? -Kyle ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 2:26 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. How is that an 'Exactly!'??? If they don't understand what it means to be POSIX? and they don't care if there are bugs, or care why things are the way they are, How will they notice that you've given them these things they don't care or know enough to recognize? They do care and they do recognize bugs and problems with Solaris /bin/sh. GNU/Linux users don't notice these issues with bash is what Joerg was talking about. How will it make them more at home? A modern shell, such as ksh93, has functionality and locale support that is near equivalent or superior to bash. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 2:26 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. How is that an 'Exactly!'??? If they don't understand what it means to be POSIX? and they don't care if there are bugs, or care why things are the way they are, How will they notice that you've given them these things they don't care or know enough to recognize? They do care and they do recognize bugs and problems with Solaris /bin/sh. GNU/Linux users don't notice these issues with bash is what Joerg was talking about. ANd giving them ksh (or even dash I imagine) on Solaris isn't going to be that noticeable then, or any better. Theonly thing they'll appreciate is giving them bash complete with it's bugs. How will it make them more at home? A modern shell, such as ksh93, has functionality and locale support that is near equivalent or superior to bash. But if they don't care, why would they notice? -Kyle ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:12:59 -0600 Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. s/them/Linuxers/g -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 2:35 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 2:26 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. How is that an 'Exactly!'??? If they don't understand what it means to be POSIX? and they don't care if there are bugs, or care why things are the way they are, How will they notice that you've given them these things they don't care or know enough to recognize? They do care and they do recognize bugs and problems with Solaris /bin/sh. GNU/Linux users don't notice these issues with bash is what Joerg was talking about. ANd giving them ksh (or even dash I imagine) on Solaris isn't going to be that noticeable then, or any better. Theonly thing they'll appreciate is giving them bash complete with it's bugs. A working backspace key isn't going to be noticed? Their programs suddenly working without requiring the shell scripts for them to be changed isn't noticeable? Working locale support won't be noticed? Forgive me, but I think you don't realise just how broken /bin/sh is. How will it make them more at home? A modern shell, such as ksh93, has functionality and locale support that is near equivalent or superior to bash. But if they don't care, why would they notice? They do care and do notice. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 2:36 PM, Ken Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:12:59 -0600 Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. s/them/Linuxers/g No; s/them/almost any other users that don't use Solaris/ Seriously; FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, and many others all provide a better /bin/sh... -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 2:35 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 2:26 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. How is that an 'Exactly!'??? If they don't understand what it means to be POSIX? and they don't care if there are bugs, or care why things are the way they are, How will they notice that you've given them these things they don't care or know enough to recognize? They do care and they do recognize bugs and problems with Solaris /bin/sh. GNU/Linux users don't notice these issues with bash is what Joerg was talking about. ANd giving them ksh (or even dash I imagine) on Solaris isn't going to be that noticeable then, or any better. Theonly thing they'll appreciate is giving them bash complete with it's bugs. A working backspace key isn't going to be noticed? I was under the (possibly wrong) imporession that that was a terminfo, or other terminal definition problem. Not the shell. Their programs suddenly working without requiring the shell scripts for them to be changed isn't noticeable? And people who's programs ans shell scripts suddenly stop working won't be noticeable? Who's going to check all the scripts in the world and update them? Not just the scripts in solaris itself. Just think of all the Per or Post install or remove scripts in the packages in BlastWave, or aome other repository? What solaris user is going to be happy when they want to install VRTSvxfs pacakge and it fails? If you want to be able to write modern portable POSIX shellscripts then you should push for all the other UNIXes to have a /bin/ksh, and write your scripts with #!/bin/ksh With the exception of Linux (and you might be able to fix that for your machines with 'ln /bin/sh /bin/ksh' - I don't know.) I'm pretty sure the other unixes already have a decent ksh. -Kyle Working locale support won't be noticed? Forgive me, but I think you don't realise just how broken /bin/sh is. How will it make them more at home? A modern shell, such as ksh93, has functionality and locale support that is near equivalent or superior to bash. But if they don't care, why would they notice? They do care and do notice. ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:10 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do. I don't see why 7 isn't an option, even if it does cause *some* degree of break in compatibility. I think the problems caused by #!/bin/sh *not* being a decent shell are greater than what little value there is in keeping it. It have been discussed many times in the POSIX mailing list and the result was always that #!/bin/sh is just outside the intentional scope pf POSIX because #!/bin/sh depends on a PATH name while POSIX _does_ _not_ deal with path names. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Josh Hurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 7, unfortunately, is not as it requires replacing /bin/sh with /bin/bash and that, I think, it something few would be willing to do. FYI Ubuntu uses dash as /bin/sh and Suse will use dash in the future. ksh93 has been discussed but it needs to be licensed as LGPL or GPL before Suse can use ksh93 as /bin/sh. Who has the missconception with licenses, it is suse or did you missunderstand things? Thanks to a long fight from David Korn against ATT, ksh93 is under an approved free OpenSource license since ~ 5 years. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. If you like to give them a POSIX shell, you definitely don't need to replace /bin/sh. People who don't write #!/bin/bash in their scripts, would even complain because they don't see the bash bugs in ksh93. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Someone had the guts to stand up against the ultraconservative 'backwards compatibility is our religion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opensolaris cannot afford such Bourne shell extravaganza anymore You don't run many mission critical workloads on the server side of things, do you? This ain't dustin' crops, oh-look-at-me-I-managed-to-install-Linux-on-my-desktop-PC-bucket type of a deal. Solaris is an enterprise grade desktop AND server operating system, and as such, it *must* be able to take abuse as both a desktop and a server operating system. What OpenSolaris can't afford is to become like Linux. That would be a catastrophe for those of us that bring food on the table and pay the bills, thanks in no small part to Solaris. Those who are just interested in geeking-off have toys like PC-buckets and Linux, and it would seem that they're much better staying in that sandbox. Em, I wish those lots of fun building sand castles, too. _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ANd giving them ksh (or even dash I imagine) on Solaris isn't going to be that noticeable then, or any better. Theonly thing they'll appreciate is giving them bash complete with it's bugs. A working backspace key isn't going to be noticed? Do you really like to discuss at a knowledge level of an average Linux user? If you like to discuss these things, please first try to understand the background. If you like to have an acceptable workaround for the ill-designed IBM-PC keyboard, you should use rxvt or the gnome terminal. This will give you the expected DEL character from the key at the mechanical position of the delete key. If you like to see the incorrect backspace behavior of bash, use bash. Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone had the guts to stand up against the ultraconservative 'backwards compatibility is our religion' [EMAIL PROTECTED] Opensolaris cannot afford such Bourne shell extravaganza anymore You don't run many mission critical workloads on the server side of things, do you? This ain't dustin' crops, oh-look-at-me-I-managed-to-install-Linux-on-my-desktop-PC-bucket type of a deal. Solaris is an enterprise grade desktop AND server operating system, and as such, it *must* be able to take abuse as both a desktop and a server operating system. What OpenSolaris can't afford is to become like Linux. That would be a catastrophe for those of us that bring food on the table and pay the bills, thanks in no small part to Solaris. Those who are just interested in geeking-off have toys like PC-buckets and Linux, and it would seem that they're much better staying in that sandbox. Em, I wish those lots of fun building sand castles, too. I'm not sure how ksh93 is making things like GNU/Linux. Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't anywhere near portable across systems. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 3:27 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ANd giving them ksh (or even dash I imagine) on Solaris isn't going to be that noticeable then, or any better. Theonly thing they'll appreciate is giving them bash complete with it's bugs. A working backspace key isn't going to be noticed? Do you really like to discuss at a knowledge level of an average Linux user? If you like to discuss these things, please first try to understand the background. If you like to have an acceptable workaround for the ill-designed IBM-PC keyboard, you should use rxvt or the gnome terminal. This will give you the expected DEL character from the key at the mechanical position of the delete key. If you like to see the incorrect backspace behavior of bash, use bash. If Solaris is going to remain commercially viable, it must transform and adopt. Some of those changes will be unpopular, but they are the right changes to make. People who enjoy a UNIX system that acts like a VT100 or pdp-11 after 30 years are welcome to keep it, the rest of us are ready to move on. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you like to have an acceptable workaround for the ill-designed IBM-PC keyboard, you should use rxvt or the gnome terminal. This will give you the expected DEL character from the key at the mechanical position of the delete key. If you like to see the incorrect backspace behavior of bash, use bash. If Solaris is going to remain commercially viable, it must transform and adopt. Why should Solaris implement bugs from bash? Do you really believe Solaris would _gain_ from implementing bugs? Jörg -- EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin [EMAIL PROTECTED](uni) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't anywhere near portable across systems. It's also not part of any standard, so how could it really? If they want to write portable scripts they should use /bin/ksh. It's that simple. -Kyle ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't anywhere near portable across systems. It's also not part of any standard, so how could it really? That doesn't excuse having a good standard shell for /bin/sh. If they want to write portable scripts they should use /bin/ksh. It's that simple. They're not the ones who wrote the scripts from what I gather. They are the ones trying to use software across multiple systems. At least with a POSIX shell for /bin/sh, there is a far better chance of getting scripts written by third parties to work. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so. - Robert Orben ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't anywhere near portable across systems. It's also not part of any standard, so how could it really? That doesn't excuse having a good standard shell for /bin/sh. What reason is there for the 'standard' shell to be named /bin/sh though? When there is a standards compliant shell at another name that will work, If they want to write portable scripts they should use /bin/ksh. It's that simple. They're not the ones who wrote the scripts from what I gather. They are the ones trying to use software across multiple systems. Trying to use software on a system other than what the developer intended is asking for problems. Obviously the developer didn't test it on these other platforms either. Given that there is no standard for how /bin/sh should work, it's possible that those scripts even take advantage of non-standard differences of the /bin/sh, and that they still won't work on strictly POSIX compliant /bin/sh that doesn't also emulate the other behaviors of the /bin/sh sheel they written for. If these scripts will magically start working when /bin/sh is ksh93 (which I doubt) then they'll also start working if the users edit them to start with #!/bin/ksh. And sinve that is (more?) standards compliant, that should still work on the platforms the scripts already work on. Is the bourne shell old? Yes. Are different implementations of the Bourne Shell incompatible? Yes. But also: Is /bin/sh the tradition location/name of the Bourne Shell? Yes. Platforms should feel free to stop including a /bin/sh altogether. There's no reason to have one if you don't want one. But what they replace it with shouldn't be called /bin/sh unless it is. At least with a POSIX shell for /bin/sh, there is a far better chance of getting scripts written by third parties to work. Only if they were written to only use strictly POSIX syntax. And if that's the case then they should also wrtie tehm to use the things the POSIX standard specifies in order to find the POSIX shell they want to run in. -Kyle ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Feb 6, 2008 5:38 PM, Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 2:36 PM, Ken Gunderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:12:59 -0600 Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 1:16 PM, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Compared to bash, /bin/sh (the Burne Shell) is bug-free. I don't think you'll find many users that agree. This is because most bash users don't understand POSIX nor care about bugs. They are not even interested in knowing the reason for a problem. Exactly! So why not give them a shell that is POSIX and that is full featured and provides something that makes them feel much more at home. s/them/Linuxers/g No; s/them/almost any other users that don't use Solaris/ Seriously; FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, GNU/Linux, and many others all provide a better /bin/sh... what we really need is a way for users to change their own shells without root privileges in /etc/passwd why would you want to change /bin/sh possibly breaking thousands of scripts many of which are critical and can't be changed? because you want something that is a better interactive shell? there are many of them already, zsh, bash, ksh93 and as a user you can pick any of them as a rule i leave my root using /bin/sh but you can easily use RBAC to create a root like user with a different shell nacho ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [osol-discuss] /bin/sh was Re: [osol-announce] No update on SXCE Build 79
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 15:55:07 -0600 Shawn Walker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:37 PM, Kyle McDonald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shawn Walker wrote: On Feb 6, 2008 3:18 PM, a b [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, and as far as the enterprise argument, go talk to some of the enterprise sysadmins who post here; they hate that /bin/sh isn't anywhere near portable across systems. It's also not part of any standard, so how could it really? That doesn't excuse having a good standard shell for /bin/sh. If they want to write portable scripts they should use /bin/ksh. It's that simple. They're not the ones who wrote the scripts from what I gather. They are the ones trying to use software across multiple systems. At least with a POSIX shell for /bin/sh, there is a far better chance of getting scripts written by third parties to work. Shawn: Do you have any actual enterprise systems admin experience? And if so, I'd be curious as to what platforms. Or is your role more primarily along the lines of Open/Solaris evangelist? Just curious so I can understand where you're coming from a bit better. In my opinion /bin/sh should be /bin/sh (bourne), no if's ands or buts about it. Even casual newbie script writer knows to specify the she-bang shell at start of script. That's what provides consistent behavior. The portability across platforms issue arise because platform A may put ksh93 in /usr/local/bin/ksh93, while platform B has it in /bin/ksh93, etc. There are common workarounds for this type of issue that have been around for decades. root's login shell is another matter. cron, scripts, etc. should specify the shell. changing root's default shell to ksh93 is just fine with me, e.g. see me earlier post w.r.t. OpenBSD, as long as you label it ksh93, and not try to rebadge as /bin/sh because then us sysadmin types think we're dealing with bourne shell. Make is zsh, or xyzsh if you want, but don't call something that's not /bin/sh because that's when you're setting the stage for disaster. OTOH, leaving it as /bin/sh is no big deal either, since under most situations admins will be su'ing up from mortal account and can carry whatever their preferred shell with them when they do. Granted in rare instances where one must login as root in single user mode it's nice to have a decent interactive shell, but not at expense of screwing over the old guard. And these days where less of the system and userland files are being broken out onto separate partitions, it's becoming more and more of a corner case. Thank you and have a nice day. -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson Q: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. A: Why is putting a reply at the top of the message frowned upon? ___ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
