Category talk:Bash: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(see also...) |
(/bin/sh != /bin/bash) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:In addition to this category, there's also [[Bourne Again SHell]] and [[Bourne Shell]]. |
:In addition to this category, there's also [[Bourne Again SHell]] and [[Bourne Shell]]. |
||
:Perhaps this category should be renamed to something like '''Category:Bourne shell''', and those other two could then be marked as implementations. -- [[User:Eriksiers|Erik Siers]] 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC) |
:Perhaps this category should be renamed to something like '''Category:Bourne shell''', and those other two could then be marked as implementations. -- [[User:Eriksiers|Erik Siers]] 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Bourne Shell is distinct. It remains the lowest common denominator for standard shell scripts on a Unix system. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 19:55, 23 September 2010
Bash: language or implementation?
I'm sick of changing Bash entries to Unix Shell + {works with|Bash}. It seems visitors to this site expect Bash to be its own language. Whichever way we choose, we ought to clean up the other choice to match. --IanOsgood 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- In addition to this category, there's also Bourne Again SHell and Bourne Shell.
- Perhaps this category should be renamed to something like Category:Bourne shell, and those other two could then be marked as implementations. -- Erik Siers 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Bourne Shell is distinct. It remains the lowest common denominator for standard shell scripts on a Unix system. --IanOsgood 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)