Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BASH 4.0 Released

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the tools-that-matter dept.

Upgrades 459

An anonymous reader writes "The widely used Bourne-Again Shell (BASH) version 4.0 is out. The new major release fixes several remaining bugs in the 3.x releases, and introduces a bunch of new features. The most notable new features are associative arrays, improvements to the programmable completion functionality, case-modifying word expansions, co-processes, support for the `**' special glob pattern, and additions to the shell syntax and redirections. The shell has been changed to be more rigorous about parsing commands inside command substitutions, fixing one piece of POSIX non-compliance. Most of us will probably wait for the distros to test the new version and upgrade gradually, but you always have the option of grabbing the source and compiling it yourself. Enjoy."

cancel ×

459 comments

Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961575)

Still gay.

Re:Linux (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961685)

Still gay.

Don't bash it dude.

This is excellent news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961587)

Perhaps this year, Linux will be ready for the desktop.

Re:This is excellent news (5, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961849)

No, but it'll be ready for the year of the commandline (comes right after year of the hippo).

Re:This is excellent news (5, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961907)

Perhaps this year, Linux will be ready for the desktop.

Linux has been ready for the desktop for years. It's just that certain users are not yet ready for Linux.

Re:This is excellent news (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962139)

So... when can we expect the year of the L(inux)user?

Re:This is excellent news (1)

sorak (246725) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962173)

Perhaps this year, Linux will be ready for the desktop.

Linux has been ready for the desktop for years. It's just that certain users are not yet ready for Linux.

Of course! Linux is ready for the desktop, but the desktop is not yet ready for Linux! We'll have to find those carpenters and tell them to build better desks.

CORRECTION (1)

grayn0de (1301165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962253)

... certain users are not yet ready...

...MOST users.

csh syntax mode? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961589)

This is great, but I find the csh syntax easier to use from the command line (however unsafe it is to use in scripts). Will they add a csh compatability mode to bash?

Re:csh syntax mode? (5, Funny)

ichthus (72442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961619)

Already there. Just type 'csh' and bash will enter csh-compatibility mode. For scripting, just replace your #!/bin/bash with #!/bin/csh and away you go.

Re:csh syntax mode? (3, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962065)

i think you mean sh, /bin/sh is a symlink to bash in most all Linux systems, calling bash from the sh symlink: Man page ahead::

If bash is invoked with the name sh, it tries to mimic the startup behavior of his- torical versions of sh as closely as possible, while conforming to the POSIX stan- dard as well. When invoked as an interactive login shell, or a non-interactive shell with the --login option, it first attempts to read and execute commands from /etc/profile and ~/.profile, in that order. The --noprofile option may be used to inhibit this behavior. When invoked as an interactive shell with the name sh, bash looks for the variable ENV, expands its value if it is defined, and uses the expanded value as the name of a file to read and execute. Since a shell invoked as sh does not attempt to read and execute commands from any other startup files, the --rcfile option has no effect. A non-interactive shell invoked with the name sh does not attempt to read any other startup files. When invoked as sh, bash enters posix mode after the startup files are read.

/bin/csh is usually a symlink to /bin/tcsh in most all Linux systems.

Re:csh syntax mode? (1, Informative)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962201)

WHOOOSH

Re:csh syntax mode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962203)

Did you hear that? It was the sound of a joke soaring over your head.

Re:csh syntax mode? (5, Funny)

Doug Neal (195160) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961925)

This is great, but I find the csh syntax easier to use from the command line (however unsafe it is to use in scripts). Will they add a csh compatability mode to bash?

ln -s /bin/false /bin/csh

99% of the functionality of csh, without the bugs!

looks like it still loses history (5, Insightful)

Froze (398171) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961629)

Don't get me wrong, I really like bash, but the treatment of history is abysmal. The default behavior is to lose history due to a race condition when multiple bash sessions that are concurrently open are closed in arbitrary order.

IMNSHO, the default of any process should be to never lose data.

Re:looks like it still loses history (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961799)

So bash should include a bashlog daemon with a sqlite DB? I can't think of a good solution off the top of my head.

Re:looks like it still loses history (2, Interesting)

geekgirlandrea (1148779) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961883)

Keep the history added in the current session in memory and, when exiting, lock the history file and append? Actually, as far as I know that's what it does; I don't think I've ever seen it actually lose history with multiple concurrent sessions, just add it to the history file in different orders depending on timing. I don't think I've paid that much attention, though.

Re:looks like it still loses history (5, Interesting)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962175)

Log in twice (A) and (B) as the same user, do something in session (A), then log out of (A).

Now check 'history' as (B), obviously the first session's command isn't there.

Open another session, (C) and check its history. It is just as you'd expect. Now type a simple command into session (B) and log out of it. What do you think the history is?

Check history on (C) still logged-in. Log out of (C) and check history on a new login and you'll see that the history matches (C) inherited from (A), no record of (B) happening.

Re:looks like it still loses history (4, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961909)

I'll grant I haven't thought this all the way through, but a slightly lighter-weight approach than daemons and databases might look like this:

Each open session logs history to a uniquely-named file. Then on session close, that file can be appended to the one true history file. (A bit of file locking can maintain atomicity of the append step.)

When you scroll back into history, you would start with your own session's still-open-and-separate history file -- which is more often than not what I'd expect, but not always what I get today. If you go back beyond the beginning of that, I supposed you'd scroll into the accumulated history of closed sessions.

This means that one session doesn't "see" the history from a concurrent session while they're both open. That, too, can be addressed, even if it has to wait for a subsequetn release. Either way, it's better than just losing the data IMO.

Re:looks like it still loses history (4, Informative)

Froze (398171) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962039)

This almost works. I have tried using an approach like this by building bash scripts and modifying history variables.

One issue is that sessions that don't terminate cleanly (ssh loss, system reboot, etc.) leave a bunch of dirty history files that would need to reaped at the next start up of a bash.

Re:looks like it still loses history (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961911)

Maybe write to ~/.bash-history.PID ? Append it to ~/.bash_history when you close the shell? Even having the history out of order would be better than losing it entirely.

Of course, this would break for those paranoid folks who link ~/.bash_history to /dev/null

Re:looks like it still loses history (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962001)

Of course, this would break for those paranoid folks who link ~/.bash_history to /dev/null

One solution is to use a ~/.bash_history.d/$PID file as a temporary storage location. If ~/.bash_history.d exists and is not a directory, don't write any history.

Re:looks like it still loses history (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962221)

Log to a PID based history file as well as to an inter-process locked DB history file.

'history' could then show the commands on this terminal for this session.

'history -a' could then show all historical commands across all open sessions by the user in proper order.

PS you can achieve this already by typing 'history -a' whenever you type a series of commands (to commit the new commands to the history immediately) and 'history -n' to read any new lines out of the history file and append them to your current session's stack.

Its not pretty, but it works.

Re:looks like it still loses history (1)

lawaetf1 (613291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961809)

Couldn't agree more. It's quite frustrating to do a history | grep in expectation of reusing some convoluted command only to find that it's not in the list.

Re:looks like it still loses history (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961885)

^R (Ctrl+R) is reverse-i-search. HTH. ~

Re:looks like it still loses history (5, Informative)

Osso (840513) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961927)

are you looking for shopt -s histappend ?

Re:looks like it still loses history (1)

Froze (398171) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962185)

That is what I am currently using, along with some stuff in PROMPT_COMMAND.

This is an unfriendly hack to fix the default behavior and that is what I am not happy with.

Re:looks like it still loses history (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962159)

It's not abysmal, it's meant to be intuitive, this way bash history record keeping reflects human history record keeping, losing history due to race conditions when multiple civilizations are concurrently in existence and then killed off in arbitrary order.

Re:looks like it still loses history (2, Funny)

Froze (398171) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962215)

BASH doesn't like it when you anthropomorphize it. ;-)

patience (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961631)

i'll wait for 4.2

Re:patience (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961781)

I see what you did there with the clever alluding to another...nevermind...

Re:patience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961897)

wut?

Posting AC to preserve my geek card.

Re:patience (2, Informative)

jetsci (1470207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962035)

Give me a K..DE!

Re:patience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962089)

I believe this is a reference to the complaints about KDE4 and KDE4.2, which appears to have alleviated some of these problems.

Re:patience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962127)

KDE 4.0 sucked. The idea is that because this is also a 4.0 it will also suck.

Sounds like you are probably more farmilar with Windows, so the analogy would be if this happened to be called BASH Vista.

Of course, BASH Vista would probably be pretty popular with the Slashdot crowd.

GNU Bash, version 4.0 (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961645)

This is GNU Bash, version 4.0. Bash is the GNU Project's Bourne
Again SHell, a complete implementation of the POSIX.2 shell spec,
but also with interactive command line editing, job control on
architectures that support it, csh-like features such as history
substitution and brace expansion, and a slew of other features.
For more information on the features of Bash that are new to this
type of shell, see the file `doc/bashref.texi'. There is also a
large Unix-style man page. The man page is the definitive description
of the shell's features.

See the file POSIX for a discussion of how the Bash defaults differ
from the POSIX.2 spec and a description of the Bash `posix mode'.

There are some user-visible incompatibilities between this version
of Bash and previous widely-distributed versions, bash-2.05b and
bash-3.2. For details, see the file COMPAT. The NEWS file tersely
lists features that are new in this release.

Bash is free software, distributed under the terms of the [GNU] General
Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation,
version 3 of the License (or any later version). For more information,
see the file COPYING.

A number of frequently-asked questions are answered in the file
`doc/FAQ'.

To compile Bash, try typing `./configure', then `make'. Bash
auto-configures the build process, so no further intervention
should be necessary. Bash builds with `gcc' by default if it is
available. If you want to use `cc' instead, type

        CC=cc ./configure

if you are using a Bourne-style shell. If you are not, the following
may work:

        env CC=cc ./configure

Read the file INSTALL in this directory for more information about how
to customize and control the build process. The file NOTES contains
platform-specific installation and configuration information.

If you are a csh user and wish to convert your csh aliases to Bash
aliases, you may wish to use the script `examples/misc/alias-conv.sh'
as a starting point. The script `examples/misc/cshtobash' is a
more ambitious script that attempts to do a more complete job.

Reporting Bugs
==============

Bug reports for bash should be sent to:

        bug-bash@gnu.org

using the `bashbug' program that is built and installed at the same
time as bash.

The discussion list `bug-bash@gnu.org' often contains information
about new ports of Bash, or discussions of new features or behavior
changes that people would like. This mailing list is also available
as a usenet newsgroup: gnu.bash.bug.

When you send a bug report, please use the `bashbug' program that is
built at the same time as bash. If bash fails to build, try building
bashbug directly with `make bashbug'. If you cannot build `bashbug',
please send mail to bug-bash@gnu.org with the following information:

        * the version number and release status of Bash (e.g., 2.05a-release)
        * the machine and OS that it is running on (you may run
            `bashversion -l' from the bash build directory for this information)
        * a list of the compilation flags or the contents of `config.h', if
            appropriate
        * a description of the bug
        * a recipe for recreating the bug reliably
        * a fix for the bug if you have one!

The `bashbug' program includes much of this automatically.

If you would like to contact the Bash maintainers directly, send mail
to bash-maintainers@gnu.org.

While the Bash maintainers do not promise to fix all bugs, we would
like this shell to be the best that we can make it.

Enjoy!

Circular what? (2, Funny)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961667)

So, I'm gonna grab the source to BASH and compile it using GCC under BASH? My brain hurts :).

Re:Circular what? (4, Funny)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961727)

stay away from kernel.org then.

Re:Circular what? (5, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961777)

What do you think was used to compile GCC?

Re:Circular what? (5, Funny)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962189)

Your mom?

Re:Circular what? (2, Informative)

Paralizer (792155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961869)

It's commonly referred to as bootstrapping. For instance, you might bootstrap your compiler by using an older version to compile the newer version of that compiler.

After bootstrapping... (2, Funny)

Dareth (47614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961931)

After bootstrapping the new compiler with the old compiler, you can then use your new compiler to compile the new compiler code.

If this bothers you, stay away from recursion [wikipedia.org] !

Re:After bootstrapping... (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962061)

And if it doesn't bother you (from a security standpoint), perhaps it shoud: oblig. Ken Thompson, "Reflections on Trusting Trust [bell-labs.com] ." (Short and very sweet).

Re:After bootstrapping... (4, Interesting)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962105)

Broken link. Try this: Reflections on Trusting Trust [boun.edu.tr] . It's the most frightening security paper of the last 30 years.

Re:Circular what? (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961985)

Sup dawg, I heard you liked compiling, so I put a compiler in your compiler so you can compile while you compile.

Re:Circular what? (1)

Paralizer (792155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962163)

Does it involve any type of yo-yo's?

New features be damned (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961673)

Nobody will really care about the new features so long as "man woman" still does that vagina-less woman joke.

Bugs (2, Funny)

microbee (682094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961675)

The new major release fixes several remaining bugs in the 3.x releases

That's great, but they forgot to mention how many new bugs were introduced.

Re:Bugs (1)

228e2 (934443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962005)

trust me, they didnt "forget"

So? (-1, Flamebait)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961681)

Tons of fun for a certain kind of hacker, but not of any interest for people writing serious scripts. Shell scripting was a big breakthrough 30 years ago, and it still has its uses. But the scripting community has moved on, and doesn't really care that Bash or Csh now have features that other scripting languages acquired decades ago.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

brasspen (899025) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961761)

The day Ruby or Python takes over from the boot grub loader for the initialization of init levels in Linux on start up is the day your statement makes sense. Until then, I think people with your attitude love one tool too much. If you don't understand BASH, you don't really understand Linux. I think OS start up is a serious script.

Re:So? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961847)

The Ubuntu and Fedora linux distribution uses Upstart as its init system, which uses Python scripts. So yeah, Python already took over from the boot loader for some.

http://upstart.ubuntu.com/

Shell scripting is obsolete technology. The only reason you'd use it is if you are a sysadmin who can't be bothered to learn something new and suffer from mindrot.

Re:So? (1)

jetsci (1470207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961941)

I'm curious, in your opinion what is a better use of my learning time? I'm learning bash scripting and python scripting at the moment as I am a sysadmin with a lot of time. What do you propose I learn instead?

Re:So? (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961943)

Get off your high horse. Upstart works equally well with shell scripts for events. Shell scripting is plenty useful and is here to stay. The only reason you'd shun it is if you were a cocky newbie who hasn't yet learned to not re-invent the wheel.

Re:So? (3, Informative)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962021)

Gentoo uses bash for their init scripts citing reasons of speed.

Yeah it does show.

Re:So? (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962103)

Shell scripting is obsolete technology.

Hardly. Shell scripting is still useful for all those simple tasks that are not much more than a couple of linked shell commands, where Python or Ruby would be major overkill. On the other hand, I'd never use Bash to write anything complicated, as Python is much easier for that.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962243)

I'm sorry, but /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit is certainly not empty on my Fedora boxes. It also contains a lot of good functionality that matters to system start-up.

Re:So? (1)

turbidostato (878842) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961857)

"I think OS start up is a serious script."

Surely it is.

You must think it's such a big pity Bash is not used on OS start up...

Re:So? (2, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961913)

/etc/init.d/acpid: Bourne-Again shell script text executable
/etc/init.d/btseed: Bourne-Again shell script text executable
/etc/init.d/bttrack: Bourne-Again shell script text executable
/etc/init.d/capi: Bourne-Again shell script text executable
...
Err, what? Shell scripts are used all the time. Even upstart services are still often written as shell scripts. Really, why all the anti-shell hostility around here?

Re:So? (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961999)

No kidding. I'm not a huge fan of bash scripting, but as a big commandline user, I am looking forward to the ** globbing.

-l

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962007)

"acpid: POSIX shell script text executable"

Very few OSes use bash for init.d scripts.

Re:So? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962029)

Do those actually require bash? Or are they 'sh' scripts that 'file' happens to call bash scripts? This isn't anti-shell hostility, it's anti-linux centric non-standard bash scripts hostility.

Re:So? (4, Informative)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961865)

What the fuck are you talking about? In the real world, shell scripts are used all the time. Despite their failings relative to more complex languages like Python and Perl, shell scripts are very easy to generate from repeated manual invocations of command lines.

In other words, to scratch an itch with a Python script requires writing your command over again. With a shell script, you can build on the commands you've already typed. Shell scripting is the original RAD, and remains very useful today.

I mostly do that in other languages, too (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962137)

Maybe it's a weird way to go about it, but when I write my shell-script-like Perl scripts, I start them out similarly by just building on commands I've already typed, wrapped in system(). Slightly heavier-weight syntax, but not by much, and allows me to use all the rest of Perl, which makes some things easier.

It does provide a portability route if I want one: I can convert all the system("mv whatever") calls to use the proper Perl OS-abstraction libraries. But you don't have to start out with those.

Re:So? (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961921)

But the scripting community has moved on,

"The scripting community"...that has to be the funniest phrase I've heard in a long time.

mostly agree (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962073)

I do find having moderate lightweight programmability in a shell to be useful, for writing one-off things on the command line: things like doing some operation on file_X for X=01 to 99. But for anything more significant, I find myself always writing a Perl script or something.

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962247)

Do you use bash on a day to day basis?

I love using bash scripting inline, so to speak. The speed that you can get complex things done on the commmand line (and you might be surprised how much you can do with a little ingenuity) is due in no small part to the flexibility of the bash scripting language.

Sure, you could fire up vi (or perhaps nano?) and write a "serious" script to help you get the job done, but my way's quicker.

case-modifying word expansions (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961695)

case-modifying word expansions

Oh, good.

I'm sure someone likes case-sensitive filenames, but they annoy me way more often than I find them useful. Maybe this will reduce or eliminate one of my biggest problems with them.

My Dr. Seuss observation... (4, Funny)

drakaan (688386) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961707)

"...The most notable new features are associative arrays..."

So now I can make a BASH hash, sweet!

Re:My Dr. Seuss observation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962003)

while wearing a sexy sash, how neat!

Re:My Dr. Seuss observation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962251)

some words here... LASH DASH... other words... TWEET

YAY! I CAN RHYME TOO!

Seems like a bad acronym (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961715)

Personally, I wouldn't install anything called BASH for the sole reason of protecting my computer from physical brutality that I do not perform personally.

If anyone's beating this thing with a baseball bat, it's gonna be me.

Re:Seems like a bad acronym (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961969)

I know you are kidding, but the award of really bad program name should go to the WebDAV client "cadaver".

And I'm tempted to name my WebDAV server "morgue" ;)

Zsh has had these features for years (5, Informative)

urdak (457938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961745)

I've been using Zsh (the Z shell) for years, because it had better completion, and a richer bourne-shell and ksh-based programming language including also associative arrays and the co-process.
So it would appear that bash finally caught up. But zsh has continued to improve. I'll be sticking with zsh for now, until I see that bash really caught up.

Re:Zsh has had these features for years (3, Funny)

Curate (783077) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962063)

Please, no more GNU bashing.

Re:Zsh has had these features for years (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962153)

Excellent post. I look forward to the ensuing flame war.

Re:Zsh has had these features for years (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962275)

I oscillate between the two, sticking with one until it irritates me enough and then switching to the other. While I love zsh's autocompetion of remote scp filenames, I can't stand the way it does this synchronously, causing the terminal to freeze if I made a typo in the host name. I also found the vi mode in zsh to be inferior to the equivalent in bash last time I tried it, but maybe it's improved since then.

Screenshots? (5, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961747)

Does anyone have any screenshots? I always hate that when they post some great new upgrade without any screenshots.

Re:Screenshots? (5, Funny)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961821)

Here are a couple of screen shots. First one running as regular user. Second one running as root.

$

#

Re:Screenshots? (0)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961839)

Screenshots of bash? Surely you troll.

Re:Screenshots? (4, Funny)

lawaetf1 (613291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961863)

Here you go..

[root@localhost ~]#

Re:Screenshots? (4, Funny)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962279)

I was really hoping someone would post a picture of a half-rotated Compiz cube with a bash shell running transparently on it.

Re:Screenshots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961875)

$ /bin/bash --version
GNU bash, version 4.0.0(0)-release (i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

An ode to Bash (1)

timpintsch (842091) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961753)

So you like to type in script, No forgiveness when a space is skipped, It doesn't matter, I'm hard up for cash. Thank goodness I have patience, for the love of BASH

Note for sysadmins (4, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961773)

With your production boxes, it's generally recommended that you wait for Bash 4.0 SP1 before deploying.

Re:Note for sysadmins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26961815)

Or even SP2

Re:Note for sysadmins (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962081)

Bash 4.0 is intended for early adopters. Most users should wait for Bash 4.2.

Bourne Shell (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961827)

If you want your scripts to be compatible with just about every Unix, you still need to stick with /bin/sh (yes, I know, it's a compatibility mode). If you don't, might as well use a better scripting language.

Re:Bourne Shell (0)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962011)

Erm, on what modern system is bash not available?

Re:Bourne Shell (1)

thermian (1267986) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962083)

There are some large software packages that can't use bash without problems. Take the Nemo Stellaer Dynamics Toolbox for instance(http://bima.astro.umd.edu/nemo/). When I was using that a couple of years ago it needed a fair bit of messing about to get it to work with bash.

Re:Bourne Shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962145)

Erm, on what modern system is bash not available?

BSD for one.

Re:Bourne Shell (3, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962157)

Solaris 9 (10 is *far* from universal, hell, even 8 is pretty common). HPUX. Tru64. That's three off the top of my head.

People have ported GNU to them but you just can't rely things like bash being there - you have to be able to work with the out of the box environment.

Re:Bourne Shell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962171)

Native Windows.

What's new? (1)

dfn_deux (535506) | more than 5 years ago | (#26961963)

Can someone post a link to a simple "What's New" doc? I'm not gonna go combing through the code to see if they've fixed my bug.

Re:What's new? (1)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962079)

http://tiswww.case.edu/php/chet/bash/CHANGES

Not a summary but a listing of incremental changes i.e. changes between 4.0 and 4.0-rc1, rc1 and beta2, beta2 and beta1, etc.

Fixed! (1)

jgeiger (1356045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962025)

The new major release fixes several remaining bugs in the 3.x releases, and introduces a bunch of bugs.

Teh snappy? (0, Offtopic)

Zaurus (674150) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962053)

But is it snappier?

DVD? (0, Offtopic)

dixiecko (1002594) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962177)

Can I order DVD from bashmall.com ?

BASH 4.0? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26962187)

Bourne bourne bourne bourne again!

Of course I wouldn't wait for 4.2, as someone pointed out above, but rather I would stick to using 3.5, even though really they are only at 3.2.

something resembling homepage (2, Insightful)

richlv (778496) | more than 5 years ago | (#26962249)

it would be quite cool if they could set up at least something something resembling homepage.
you know, the thing with announcements, news, and, ooooh, release notes !
wiki probably would be too much to ask.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...