Slashdot Mirror
Bash 3.0 Released
qazwsx789 writes "The first public release of bash-3.0 is now available via ftp and from the usual GNU mirror sites. For the official release notes by the author, Chet Ramey, check his usenet post."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Bash was my first shell and I used it exclusively for years. One day, I'd read enough about zsh to force myself to give it a try. Oh how I loved thee, bash, but I won't be going back.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Hell, I didn't even know bash was still in active development. It was always just bash to me, not bash-x.y.z. But then I guess I wouldn't notice the difference, really.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Someone tell me why I want this. The Usenet post doesn't seem to explain what's so exciting about it, besides a bunch of boring bug-fixes, and some esoteric-sounding syntax changes.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It's nice to see yet more contributions from Apple to the OSS community.
I seriously hope they've fixed that bag. Since a lot of GNU/LNUX distros don't even ship with a real sh, but symlink to bash. Some random linux bozo makes a #!/bin/sh script thinking it will be portable, but bash (at least 2.x does) forgets to switch off some features when invoked as /bin/sh, so in the end you write a non-portable script. And listen, linux people, /bin/bash is not standard!
Alfred, tired of fixing stupid scripts that assume the whole world has bash in /bin.
Looks like a nice Unicode-savvy release that should help with dealing with international languages at the command line. And yay to Apple for giving back (again). When will people finally accept that Apple is indeed helping out the OSS community through GCC, bash, and other tools...?
Kind of off-topic, but for speed purposes in scripts that have to run fast, I find nothing better or more convenient than Ash, especially on systems where
Does anyone know any history on this shell? Is it a clone of the original bourne shell or of bash? I can't seem to find anything useful on Google
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
The one thing I find weird with Apple adding stuff to bash is that's Mac OS X's default shell is tcsh. But it is nice of Apple anyway...
10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
20 GOTO 10
What is so hot about bash, e.g. compared to zsh?
Seriously, I'm not trying to start a flame war here. This is coming from a really long term zsh user because back when I was just starting unix and linux a fellow bearded unix guru told me something along the lines "go with zsh, it's the best" (thas was about -95). And I've never looked back, but now seing bash being the default shell in most distros I've began to wonder what's going on. Perhaps over the years bash overtook zsh or there are some hidden qualities in bash that I don't know about.
Anyone with some insight on _both_ shells would be greatly appreciated.
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
It's probably not too hard to break out of the restricted shell if you really put your mind to it. I've seen a shell where "command -p sh" would do the job. It isn't that widely used and is rarely used for anything where security really matters. I've never heard of anyone doing a serious study of it. If security matters to you, I wouldn't rely on it.
I read the announcement and it mentions "History traversal with arrow keys", but what I would really like doesn't seem to be mentioned (but perhaps it is possible with bash-2.05, I'm not much of a shell expert). In Matlab, the up-arrow key searches the history for commands that match all the characters on the line. No characters and it acts like a normal bash arrow, if "figure, plot" is at the beginning of the line, it will quickly scroll through all plotting commands that have been entered at the shell.
Any idea if this is possible?
Dara Parsavand
You like using a GUI and I like using a terminal. We're two people with two preferred methods of interacting with our machines. Your way is superior - for you. My way is superior - for me. There is no point (or obligation) to argue about which is better, since "better" is not a well-ordered set in this case.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Guys, I'm really so excited about this. I ran around proclaiming the news about bash-3.0 in my department. Not too many people got excited (I work in Psychology) but check this out:
[user@mitral user]$ echo $BASH_VERSION
2.05a.0(1)-release
[user@mitral user]$ a | b |cat
bash: a: command not found
bash: b: command not found
[user@mitral user]$ echo $?
0
[user@mitral bash-3.0]$ echo $BASH_VERSION
3.00.0(1)-release
[user@mitral bash-3.0]$ set -o pipefail
[user@mitral bash-3.0]$ a | b |cat
bash: a: command not found
bash: b: command not found
[user@mitral bash-3.0]$ echo $?
127
Feel the love!
Bad example. Using KDE, I click on my home directory icon, select the images I want to convert, right-click on one of them and pick Actions | Convert To | PNG.
This is just as quick, doesn't require you to memorise complicated syntax, and doesn't require filenames that follow a common pattern.
Can't seems to find it from ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash, ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/bash, nor from other mirrors.
The most updated version is still 2.05b, not even the patch to 3.0 is available...
The plan was to introduce new features in sub-versions like
As opposed to most open source software, which releases x.0 as soon as it compiles, and only then starts working out the stability bugs.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
I think only a few would even try to argue that they are. Most shells aren only somewhat available on non *nix OSs & many aren't available ay all off of them. Bash is, at least, reasonably available on most OSs. It is also the de facto shell standard, being found on linux and most newer *nix variants.
Portable shell scripts are probably more impeded when they use tools that aren't part of the shell & which aren't on the target system.
If you want true script portability, it is probably better to use something like perl. If you are concerned with writing short, simple scripts, shell scripts are fine. But not even sh is commonly interperated, & bash is VERY common, so bash isn't really an inappropriate choice.
http://mattwalsh.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/BashDire
The one 'hole' is that command completion is a bit weird for the first element of a directory...if you have a directory that starts with 'ls', and you type ls <TAB> it will complete with 'ls'. Still, I find it to be very useful.
Does it hurt to hear them lying? Was this the only world you had?
Indeed, dtksh is nice.
Actually, I think dtksh is the latest version of the Korn Shell around. Anybody know a more recent version?
I especially like things such as
>all.txt
for ((i=1;i> all.txt
done
It still p*sses me off that such a simple thing can't be done with ksh. (the default shell on many HP-UX/AIX/etc boxes.)
Features like the for loop above are mentioned in O'Reilly's Korn Shell book, but are not present in the version that's mostly available.
0.02
Matt
News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog