Comments on: Ubuntu: make the world a better place by holding users hostages? http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/ Scheme, web applications, tech Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:56:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: Andrew Williams http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-216 Sun, 18 Mar 2007 13:31:07 +0000 http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-216 @pinkoponko Then again, bash is "bourne again shell", not the original bourne shell... @pinkoponko

Then again, bash is “bourne again shell”, not the original bourne shell…

]]> by: Dan Muresan http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-208 Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:59:14 +0000 http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-208 No one's claiming the scripts were correct. This was never the point. The point is the users shouldn't be the ones punished (as they currently are). Regarding LSB: indeed, this is a larger, LSB issue. This does not change the point. Users don't need to know about LSB or Posix — "Linux for human beings", right? No one’s claiming the scripts were correct. This was never the point. The point is the users shouldn’t be the ones punished (as they currently are).

Regarding LSB: indeed, this is a larger, LSB issue. This does not change the point. Users don’t need to know about LSB or Posix — “Linux for human beings”, right?

]]> by: pinkoponko http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-207 Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:53:23 +0000 http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-207 I share your frustration about *how* the Ubuntu team made the bash->dash transition. However, it is not fair to claim that using a syntax exclusive to bash, while declaring it to be POSIX-compatible Bourne shell (by setting shebang to #!/bin/sh) is justified under any circumstances. I share your frustration about *how* the Ubuntu team made the bash->dash transition. However, it is not fair to claim that using a syntax exclusive to bash, while declaring it to be POSIX-compatible Bourne shell (by setting shebang to #!/bin/sh) is justified under any circumstances.

]]> by: Dan Muresan http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-206 Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:37:48 +0000 http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-206 Good for you, LionsPhil :) The discussion on that post follows a familiar pattern: the people who are not affected by this bug go on and on about the "right thing", while those who were bitten try to explain that users shouldn't be the ones to suffer. I was using "bugzilla" generically, of course. Good for you, LionsPhil :)

The discussion on that post follows a familiar pattern: the people who are not affected by this bug go on and on about the “right thing”, while those who were bitten try to explain that users shouldn’t be the ones to suffer.

I was using “bugzilla” generically, of course.

]]> by: Andrew Williams http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-205 Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:21:03 +0000 http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-205 Regarding the quote mentioning the software package is broken, maybe you should include the entire post and not just the choice segment: <blockquote>The standard, as defined by the LSB, is that /bin/sh conforms to POSIX (with one extension related to login shells, but that's not relevant in this case). If vendors are distributing software that expects /bin/sh to be bash, then that software is broken. Please take it up with them.</blockquote> I think he has a very valid point in that case, after all, bash isn't the default shell on all *nix operating systems. Regarding the quote mentioning the software package is broken, maybe you should include the entire post and not just the choice segment:

The standard, as defined by the LSB, is that /bin/sh conforms to POSIX
(with one extension related to login shells, but that’s not relevant in
this case). If vendors are distributing software that expects /bin/sh to
be bash, then that software is broken. Please take it up with them.

I think he has a very valid point in that case, after all, bash isn’t the default shell on all *nix operating systems.

]]> by: LionsPhil http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-202 Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:55:08 +0000 http://www.omnigia.com/news/2007/03/16/ununtu-dash-bash-controversy/#comment-202 Beaten it to you by several months, mate. ;) http://fragglet.livejournal.com/9110.html http://lionsphil.livejournal.com/4197.html And it's not a bugzilla thread, because (mercifully) they don't use that broken piece-of-crap bugtracker. Beaten it to you by several months, mate. ;)

http://fragglet.livejournal.com/9110.html
http://lionsphil.livejournal.com/4197.html

And it’s not a bugzilla thread, because (mercifully) they don’t use that broken piece-of-crap bugtracker.

]]>