Has /bin/sh always been a symbolic link?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
In Ubuntu, /bin/sh is a symbolic link that points to /bin/dash.
Has there been a Unix or Unix-like operating system where /bin/sh was an actual shell and not a symbolic link that points to a shell?
linux shell history
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
In Ubuntu, /bin/sh is a symbolic link that points to /bin/dash.
Has there been a Unix or Unix-like operating system where /bin/sh was an actual shell and not a symbolic link that points to a shell?
linux shell history
2
Yes, it used to be the Bourne Shell, and more ancient than bash. dash is a cut-down static linked version. see cyberciti.biz/faq/â¦
â Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 5 at 21:36
Minor nit-pick âÂÂdashisnâÂÂt usually statically linked, it just doesnâÂÂt need much in the way of libraries.
â Stephen Kitt
Jan 6 at 10:42
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
In Ubuntu, /bin/sh is a symbolic link that points to /bin/dash.
Has there been a Unix or Unix-like operating system where /bin/sh was an actual shell and not a symbolic link that points to a shell?
linux shell history
In Ubuntu, /bin/sh is a symbolic link that points to /bin/dash.
Has there been a Unix or Unix-like operating system where /bin/sh was an actual shell and not a symbolic link that points to a shell?
linux shell history
asked Jan 5 at 21:35
user268325
703
703
2
Yes, it used to be the Bourne Shell, and more ancient than bash. dash is a cut-down static linked version. see cyberciti.biz/faq/â¦
â Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 5 at 21:36
Minor nit-pick âÂÂdashisnâÂÂt usually statically linked, it just doesnâÂÂt need much in the way of libraries.
â Stephen Kitt
Jan 6 at 10:42
add a comment |Â
2
Yes, it used to be the Bourne Shell, and more ancient than bash. dash is a cut-down static linked version. see cyberciti.biz/faq/â¦
â Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 5 at 21:36
Minor nit-pick âÂÂdashisnâÂÂt usually statically linked, it just doesnâÂÂt need much in the way of libraries.
â Stephen Kitt
Jan 6 at 10:42
2
2
Yes, it used to be the Bourne Shell, and more ancient than bash. dash is a cut-down static linked version. see cyberciti.biz/faq/â¦
â Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 5 at 21:36
Yes, it used to be the Bourne Shell, and more ancient than bash. dash is a cut-down static linked version. see cyberciti.biz/faq/â¦
â Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 5 at 21:36
Minor nit-pick âÂÂ
dash isnâÂÂt usually statically linked, it just doesnâÂÂt need much in the way of libraries.â Stephen Kitt
Jan 6 at 10:42
Minor nit-pick âÂÂ
dash isnâÂÂt usually statically linked, it just doesnâÂÂt need much in the way of libraries.â Stephen Kitt
Jan 6 at 10:42
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
In Ubuntu, it was not always a symlink to dash. This occurred with the release of Ubuntu 6.10. An extensive document explaining the rationale for the change can be found here.
From that document:
The major reason to switch the default shell was efficiency. bash is
an excellent full-featured shell appropriate for interactive use;
indeed, it is still the default login shell. However, it is rather
large and slow to start up and operate by comparison with dash. A
large number of shell instances are started as part of the Ubuntu boot
process. Rather than change each of them individually to run
explicitly under /bin/dash, a change which would require significant
ongoing maintenance and which would be liable to regress if not paid
close attention, the Ubuntu core development team felt that it was
best simply to change the default shell. The boot speed improvements
in Ubuntu 6.10 were often incorrectly attributed to Upstart, which is
a fine platform for future development of the init system but in
Ubuntu 6.10 was primarily running in System V compatibility mode with
only small behavioural changes. These improvements were in fact
largely due to the changed /bin/sh.
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
sh cannot have always been a symbolic link, as symbolic links were only introduced in 4.2 BSD (1977) and the older Sixth Edition of Unix has
$ tar tvzf v6root.tar.gz | grep 5888
-rwxrwxr-x 0 3 3 5888 May 13 1975 ./bin/sh
$
You can see BSDs today that do not have /bin/sh as a symbolic link. For examples:
- On OpenBSD it is a hard link to the Korn shell (OpenBSD's variant of
pdksh):$ ls -il /bin/,k,rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/ksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/sh
$ - On FreeBSD it is a descendant of the Almquist shell:
% ls -il /bin/sh
561595 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 143432 Jan 7 2017 /bin/sh
%
3
I can push back the dates a little earlier. The second editions's login program called/bin/sh. Symlinks were in BSD at least as far back as 4.1c
â Mark Plotnick
Jan 5 at 22:32
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
In Ubuntu, it was not always a symlink to dash. This occurred with the release of Ubuntu 6.10. An extensive document explaining the rationale for the change can be found here.
From that document:
The major reason to switch the default shell was efficiency. bash is
an excellent full-featured shell appropriate for interactive use;
indeed, it is still the default login shell. However, it is rather
large and slow to start up and operate by comparison with dash. A
large number of shell instances are started as part of the Ubuntu boot
process. Rather than change each of them individually to run
explicitly under /bin/dash, a change which would require significant
ongoing maintenance and which would be liable to regress if not paid
close attention, the Ubuntu core development team felt that it was
best simply to change the default shell. The boot speed improvements
in Ubuntu 6.10 were often incorrectly attributed to Upstart, which is
a fine platform for future development of the init system but in
Ubuntu 6.10 was primarily running in System V compatibility mode with
only small behavioural changes. These improvements were in fact
largely due to the changed /bin/sh.
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
In Ubuntu, it was not always a symlink to dash. This occurred with the release of Ubuntu 6.10. An extensive document explaining the rationale for the change can be found here.
From that document:
The major reason to switch the default shell was efficiency. bash is
an excellent full-featured shell appropriate for interactive use;
indeed, it is still the default login shell. However, it is rather
large and slow to start up and operate by comparison with dash. A
large number of shell instances are started as part of the Ubuntu boot
process. Rather than change each of them individually to run
explicitly under /bin/dash, a change which would require significant
ongoing maintenance and which would be liable to regress if not paid
close attention, the Ubuntu core development team felt that it was
best simply to change the default shell. The boot speed improvements
in Ubuntu 6.10 were often incorrectly attributed to Upstart, which is
a fine platform for future development of the init system but in
Ubuntu 6.10 was primarily running in System V compatibility mode with
only small behavioural changes. These improvements were in fact
largely due to the changed /bin/sh.
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
In Ubuntu, it was not always a symlink to dash. This occurred with the release of Ubuntu 6.10. An extensive document explaining the rationale for the change can be found here.
From that document:
The major reason to switch the default shell was efficiency. bash is
an excellent full-featured shell appropriate for interactive use;
indeed, it is still the default login shell. However, it is rather
large and slow to start up and operate by comparison with dash. A
large number of shell instances are started as part of the Ubuntu boot
process. Rather than change each of them individually to run
explicitly under /bin/dash, a change which would require significant
ongoing maintenance and which would be liable to regress if not paid
close attention, the Ubuntu core development team felt that it was
best simply to change the default shell. The boot speed improvements
in Ubuntu 6.10 were often incorrectly attributed to Upstart, which is
a fine platform for future development of the init system but in
Ubuntu 6.10 was primarily running in System V compatibility mode with
only small behavioural changes. These improvements were in fact
largely due to the changed /bin/sh.
In Ubuntu, it was not always a symlink to dash. This occurred with the release of Ubuntu 6.10. An extensive document explaining the rationale for the change can be found here.
From that document:
The major reason to switch the default shell was efficiency. bash is
an excellent full-featured shell appropriate for interactive use;
indeed, it is still the default login shell. However, it is rather
large and slow to start up and operate by comparison with dash. A
large number of shell instances are started as part of the Ubuntu boot
process. Rather than change each of them individually to run
explicitly under /bin/dash, a change which would require significant
ongoing maintenance and which would be liable to regress if not paid
close attention, the Ubuntu core development team felt that it was
best simply to change the default shell. The boot speed improvements
in Ubuntu 6.10 were often incorrectly attributed to Upstart, which is
a fine platform for future development of the init system but in
Ubuntu 6.10 was primarily running in System V compatibility mode with
only small behavioural changes. These improvements were in fact
largely due to the changed /bin/sh.
answered Jan 5 at 21:39
DopeGhoti
40.5k54979
40.5k54979
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
sh cannot have always been a symbolic link, as symbolic links were only introduced in 4.2 BSD (1977) and the older Sixth Edition of Unix has
$ tar tvzf v6root.tar.gz | grep 5888
-rwxrwxr-x 0 3 3 5888 May 13 1975 ./bin/sh
$
You can see BSDs today that do not have /bin/sh as a symbolic link. For examples:
- On OpenBSD it is a hard link to the Korn shell (OpenBSD's variant of
pdksh):$ ls -il /bin/,k,rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/ksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/sh
$ - On FreeBSD it is a descendant of the Almquist shell:
% ls -il /bin/sh
561595 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 143432 Jan 7 2017 /bin/sh
%
3
I can push back the dates a little earlier. The second editions's login program called/bin/sh. Symlinks were in BSD at least as far back as 4.1c
â Mark Plotnick
Jan 5 at 22:32
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
sh cannot have always been a symbolic link, as symbolic links were only introduced in 4.2 BSD (1977) and the older Sixth Edition of Unix has
$ tar tvzf v6root.tar.gz | grep 5888
-rwxrwxr-x 0 3 3 5888 May 13 1975 ./bin/sh
$
You can see BSDs today that do not have /bin/sh as a symbolic link. For examples:
- On OpenBSD it is a hard link to the Korn shell (OpenBSD's variant of
pdksh):$ ls -il /bin/,k,rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/ksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/sh
$ - On FreeBSD it is a descendant of the Almquist shell:
% ls -il /bin/sh
561595 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 143432 Jan 7 2017 /bin/sh
%
3
I can push back the dates a little earlier. The second editions's login program called/bin/sh. Symlinks were in BSD at least as far back as 4.1c
â Mark Plotnick
Jan 5 at 22:32
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
sh cannot have always been a symbolic link, as symbolic links were only introduced in 4.2 BSD (1977) and the older Sixth Edition of Unix has
$ tar tvzf v6root.tar.gz | grep 5888
-rwxrwxr-x 0 3 3 5888 May 13 1975 ./bin/sh
$
You can see BSDs today that do not have /bin/sh as a symbolic link. For examples:
- On OpenBSD it is a hard link to the Korn shell (OpenBSD's variant of
pdksh):$ ls -il /bin/,k,rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/ksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/sh
$ - On FreeBSD it is a descendant of the Almquist shell:
% ls -il /bin/sh
561595 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 143432 Jan 7 2017 /bin/sh
%
sh cannot have always been a symbolic link, as symbolic links were only introduced in 4.2 BSD (1977) and the older Sixth Edition of Unix has
$ tar tvzf v6root.tar.gz | grep 5888
-rwxrwxr-x 0 3 3 5888 May 13 1975 ./bin/sh
$
You can see BSDs today that do not have /bin/sh as a symbolic link. For examples:
- On OpenBSD it is a hard link to the Korn shell (OpenBSD's variant of
pdksh):$ ls -il /bin/,k,rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/ksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/rksh
26004 -r-xr-xr-x 3 root bin 469976 Feb 26 2016 /bin/sh
$ - On FreeBSD it is a descendant of the Almquist shell:
% ls -il /bin/sh
561595 -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 143432 Jan 7 2017 /bin/sh
%
edited Jan 5 at 23:07
Stéphane Chazelas
281k53518849
281k53518849
answered Jan 5 at 22:20
thrig
22.3k12852
22.3k12852
3
I can push back the dates a little earlier. The second editions's login program called/bin/sh. Symlinks were in BSD at least as far back as 4.1c
â Mark Plotnick
Jan 5 at 22:32
add a comment |Â
3
I can push back the dates a little earlier. The second editions's login program called/bin/sh. Symlinks were in BSD at least as far back as 4.1c
â Mark Plotnick
Jan 5 at 22:32
3
3
I can push back the dates a little earlier. The second editions's login program called
/bin/sh. Symlinks were in BSD at least as far back as 4.1câ Mark Plotnick
Jan 5 at 22:32
I can push back the dates a little earlier. The second editions's login program called
/bin/sh. Symlinks were in BSD at least as far back as 4.1câ Mark Plotnick
Jan 5 at 22:32
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f415092%2fhas-bin-sh-always-been-a-symbolic-link%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Yes, it used to be the Bourne Shell, and more ancient than bash. dash is a cut-down static linked version. see cyberciti.biz/faq/â¦
â Rui F Ribeiro
Jan 5 at 21:36
Minor nit-pick âÂÂ
dashisnâÂÂt usually statically linked, it just doesnâÂÂt need much in the way of libraries.â Stephen Kitt
Jan 6 at 10:42