On 2013-11-25 21:11:09 +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote:
> > Although maybe we don't have to care about POSIX any more as long as
> > we're not /bin/sh, who knows. I know a few people who are happily using
> > fish (which sucks), but at least it shows that people don't necessarily
> > care about POSIX semantics in their shell.
>
> Do these people really use fish as /bin/sh or do they use it as their
> interactive shell? The former is _very_ scary, the latter is just a
> matter of taste.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear, I was trying to say that they don't use it
as /bin/sh. I don't think any major POSIX-like distribution would pass
init without a POSIX compliant /bin/sh, although I'm willing to be shown
otherwise.
> My personal opinion is that as /bin/sh only something POSIX compliant
> makes sense, an interactive shell can be a bit more adventurous.
On a POSIX system, yes. Otherwise, no. Unfortunately I think everyone
here seems focussed on POSIX systems right now.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Mon Nov 25 2013 - 21:17:06 CET