From: John Kelly on
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:42:39 +1000, Ben Finney
<ben+unix(a)benfinney.id.au> wrote:

>pk <pk(a)pk.invalid> writes:
>
>> Yes, he said "Almquist shells".
>
>Indeed. My point was to make clear that �I've never heard of Almquist
>shells so it can't be too widespread� is, despite its superficial
>attractiveness, not a safe conclusion. Almquist shells are going to be
>much more prevalent now, since �dash� is the default �/bin/sh� in new
>Debian installations as of the upcoming Squeeze release.

I don't plan to suffer Debian's bad decisions. They do too many things
wrong.


--
Web mail, POP3, and SMTP
http://www.beewyz.com/freeaccounts.php

From: Sven Mascheck on
Ben Finney wrote:

> Almquist shells are going to be much more prevalent now, since
> dash is the default /bin/sh in new Debian installations as of
> the upcoming Squeeze release.

....and don't forget about those, which are not explicitly labeled
as almquist shells, in particular /bin/sh on Net- and FreeBSD.
And slackware and busybox also come to mind.

--
http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shells/
From: Seebs on
On 2010-08-11, Sven Mascheck <mascheck(a)email.invalid> wrote:
> ...and don't forget about those, which are not explicitly labeled
> as almquist shells, in particular /bin/sh on Net- and FreeBSD.
> And slackware and busybox also come to mind.

Yes.

Someone trying to write programs which were going to be usable by other
people would want to either:

1. Write for POSIX sh, these days, or...
2. Use #!/bin/bash and hope that people installed it there.

That may not apply to all readers here; sometimes just knowing that your
program won't run on a ton of other peoples' systems is enough to make you
feel special and important.

-s
--
Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!