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.

2
  • As I understand, the POSIX standard specifies required features for the Bourne shell, at /bin/sh, and most Linux distributions depend upon shell scripts written to use the Bourne shell. BASH is at base an enhanced version of the Bourne shell, and /bin/sh is actually a link to /bin/bash, that when executed runs with just the Bourne shell features. Commented Jan 12, 2012 at 18:18
  • @bgvaughan Some distributions ship bash as /bin/sh, others ship ash. For example Ubuntu's /bin/sh has been dash (the fork of ash maintained by Debian) for a while. Bash has more features, ash is smaller and faster. Both are POSIX compliant (or at least compliant enough in practice). Commented Jan 12, 2012 at 18:54