David Brodbeck wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >I suppose they have their own sh. Because bash is also under active > >development (and has broken scripts several times in the past). > > Yeah, FreeBSD ships its own, less featureful (but more compact!) > version of sh, with bash available as a port. /bin/sh is used as the > standard command interpreter.
And also because of the license. *BSD uses a BSD license and needs a /bin/sh that is compatible with it while Bash uses a GPL license which is not. This creates a problem for *BSD. > Linux is the only *nix-ish OS I've used where /bin/sh and bash are > synonymous. ;) Not synonymous, just the most prevalent from the distros. It can be changed and any bugs found in other packages that use bash features without properly calling bash reported. Bob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
