Nathan E Norman writes: > Uh, what? bash is a bourne shell (and then some). ash is probably a > more "pure" bourne shell; it's not clear to me whether it strives more > for bourne or POSIX compliance.
Ash strives mightily for POSIX compliance. Bourne compliance is impossible: there is no published standard and successive versions have been mutually incompatible. > Who told you debian didn't have a bourne shell? What the Oracle people mean by a Bourne shell is one that supports whatever non-standard features of the Solaris sh that they have chosen to use in their scripts. If they gave a damn about portability they would have used only POSIX features. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
