A Real Bourne Shell for Linux?

the_code_poet asks: "I'm a lead developer for a software development company, and one of my responsibilities has been writing an installer for our product (of which Linux is one of the platforms). In keeping with UNIX tradition, the installer is written in shell (thats /bin/sh), but as many of you know there is no Bourne shell for Linux - only bash. This has caused inconsistencies (mostly bugs in bash) when writing a generic UNIX sh script that works fine on commerical *NIX's." For a semi-complete list of differences between bash and sh, you will want to check out section C1 of the Bourne Again Shell FAQ. To be honest, I have yet to run into much trouble with a script starting with #!/bin/sh with /bin/bash, and I've been using the latter for years. If any of you have had problems related to this, please tell us what the problem was and how you solved it. Also: would anyone out there be interested in writing a real Bourne Shell for Linux?

"On every distro I've ever seen /bin/sh is just a soft link to /bin/bash. If bash is invoked with sh as its name (argv[0]) then its supposed to act like Bourne - but that just doesnt happen (for example: export FOO=bar is *not* valid Bourne shell syntax, you must say FOO=bar; export FOO)

Do you think that the startup scripts for most distributions would break because, even though they say #!/bin/sh at the top, they REALLY mean #!/bin/bash?

Given that there is no real Bourne shell for Linux, and that bash has an exhorbitant file size. Quoting bash's man page, here: '...it's too big and too slow' for something that is to be used as the defacto-standard shell for scripting, do you think its a worthy venture to set out to write a small, tight, pure Bourne shell?

*asbestos disclaimer*: This has nothing to with Bash as an interactive user shell and has nothing to do with a holy war over who's favorite shell is better than whomever's."

While doing a small bit of research on this question, I noted there was another Bourn-compatible shell out there called "ash", yet it's billed as doing "some things better and some things worse than bash". Does anyone use it, and find it better than bash for their shell scripting needs?

Comments

Not "sh" for Linux...

[Jetson]

I'd rather see bash on HP/UX, etc. Why should we take a giant leap backward for their sake?

The solution is...

[aminorex]

...submit a fucking patch, dickwad.
Sheesh. Some people's kids!

a real bourne shell

[super-flex-o-matic]

is the last thing linux needs to succeed at the moment.

so why ask for people to write one, if it lacks in totally different places.

a question from me maybe:
is it possible to scale linux down, put (insert the most user-friendly windowmanager here) in it, and keep all those server stuff (appache, bind etc.) out put it on one cd, make an easy installer with good hardware detection, make a framework that 3rd party software vendors can work on without colliding with the GPL's issues, eye candy - multiuser support. and ease the pain of windows users.

ah ya, and dont forget to write a script that makes the delete and backspace buttons work under every terminal-emulator.

Can you blame 'em?

[imrdkl]

For making a shell that is incompatible with non-free OS?

Re:It's a non-issue.

[ink]

Adding features is good, but keep them out of the thing that claims to be the standard version of the language. /bin/sh should be a POSIX shell, period.

So which is it that you people want? A POSIX shell or a Bourne shell? They are mutually exclusive. Bash and ksh are both POSIX shells, but the Bourne shell is most definately not. As far as I'm concerned, POSIX can go jump in a lake anyway -- but that's another rant for another day.