Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

14
  • 4
    A more direct suggestion that the program od prevented the use of od as a keyword can be found (sans citation) in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Od_(Unix).
    – chepner
    Commented Jun 23, 2021 at 14:07
  • 3
    ENDSW instead of HCTIWS - what was SRB thinking??! Commented Jun 23, 2021 at 16:36
  • 5
    @DungSaga, ...it's a bit more indirect than that. bash isn't compatible with Bourne -- rather, it's compatible with POSIX sh. The POSIX sh standard definitely has a huge amount of Bourne influence, but compatible they're not -- for example, in true Bourne shell, ^ is a secondary pipe character, whereas it doesn't work that way in either POSIX sh or bash. There's an argument to be made that the POSIX sh standard was more closely drawn from ksh, which was modeled off Bourne... Commented Jun 23, 2021 at 17:42
  • 3
    @DungSaga, try echo hello ^ cat. In POSIX sh or bash it outputs hello ^ cat; in real original Bourne it outputs just hello. (That test is how GNU autoconf distinguishes between original Bourne and POSIX-family shells like ash, dash, or bash). Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 18:01
  • 3
    @DungSaga, ... remember, original Bourne is a product of the 1970s, whereas POSIX sh was standardized in 1992 (at which time ksh -- from which both bash and the POSIX sh spec drew inspiration -- had substantially improved the state of the art). That's a lot of years for nothing to change; of course a new shell released at the end of the 80s would be more similar to its contemporaries than to something a decade older. Commented Jun 24, 2021 at 18:08