2008-12-1, 10:16(+00), Andre Majorel:
[...]
>> Tru64:
>> /bin/sh can behave either as a Bourne shell or a POSIX shell
>> (ksh88) depending on the environment
>
> How does it decide ? argv[0] ? isatty (STDIN_FILENO) ?
That was answered in another article with a quote of the sh man
page on Tru64
2008-12-01, 08:51(+00), Casper H.S Dik:
> Stephane CHAZELAS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>It's true it was vague and misleading,
>
>>/bin is not the standard place to look for "sh" as far as the
>>"POSIX" standard is concerned. That does
2008-12-1, 01:10(+01), Sven Mascheck:
> In comp.unix.shell Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
>
>> The Bourne shell, as can still be found on some systems either in some
>> non-standard place (/bin on Solaris, /usr/old/bin on HPUX) or named
>> differently [...]
>
> What do you
2008-11-30, 06:11(+00), Tam Ha:
> Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
>> There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
>> There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
>> /bin/sh should be any variant of the Bourne shell.
>
> Sure there
2008-11-30, 06:11(+00), Tam Ha:
> Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
>> There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
>> There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
>> /bin/sh should be any variant of the Bourne shell.
>
> Sure the
2008-11-29, 16:23(+00), Tam Ha:
> Jorgen Grahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>(I could get away with using Bash in these cases. It has functions,
>>local variables and so on. Writing portable Bourne shell is not as
>>much fun.)
>
> Can you explain this? Bourne is always more portable than Bash.
>
On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:30:06 -0500, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> when I run a command
>>
>> myapp 2>&1
>
> Try
>
> myapp 2>&1 | cat
>
> and see what you get. You should get the same output as the python.
>
>> #!python
>> print os.popen("myapp 2>&1").read()
>
