Beta
×

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 3.0 Released

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the hallelujah-bash-is-risen dept.

Announcements 507

qazwsx789 writes "The first public release of bash-3.0 is now available via ftp and from the usual GNU mirror sites. For the official release notes by the author, Chet Ramey, check his usenet post."

cancel ×

507 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GNAA EARLY POST (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9831911)

DID I DO IT? LOLZ znegvanyq gjdgjfgjfgjfgjfgjfgjfgjfgjfgjfgjfgjfg

fp (0, Offtopic)

aeroz3 (306042) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831914)

fp!

FP! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9831915)

FP !

I'm still waiting for a feature (4, Funny)

Stevyn (691306) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831916)

...a GTK front end

Re:I'm still waiting for a feature (4, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831947)

...a GTK front end

There is. Try zenity.

Re:I'm still waiting for a feature (4, Funny)

Apreche (239272) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831952)

gnome-terminal, duh.

Re:I'm still waiting for a feature (0, Redundant)

Roguelazer (606927) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831978)

$ gnome-terminal

Re:I'm still waiting for a feature (3, Funny)

Ari_Haviv (796424) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832066)

how about...wizards?

Re:I'm still waiting for a feature (0, Flamebait)

SnoBall (778388) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832188)

How about the ability to Bash Micro$oft? Of course, this could always be implemented when version 6.66 comes out.

and then... (1)

pb (1020) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832101)

...you can go full-circle, and use Cursed GTK [sourceforge.net] !

huh? (-1, Flamebait)

Leroy_Brown242 (683141) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831923)

People still use Bash?
I thought only newbs used it.

Re:huh? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832206)


ksh: the only shell you'll need once you learn to wipe your own ass.

Fear the penguins! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9831924)

Nice logo :-)

OMGOMGOMG (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9831926)

I've been waiting long for this day!

First "zsh rules" post! (5, Interesting)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831928)

Bash was my first shell and I used it exclusively for years. One day, I'd read enough about zsh to force myself to give it a try. Oh how I loved thee, bash, but I won't be going back.

Re:First "zsh rules" post! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832009)

zsh is nice, but bash still has its applications. I run zsh on most places, but my laptop, and servers that are somewhat underpowered, stick with bash as a nice balance between the baroque zsh and a lightweight, but less usable shell.

Re:First "zsh rules" post! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832013)

insightful? please at least give a few reasons why zsh is better. I use bash, but i'm open to other possibilities.

Re:First "zsh rules" post! (5, Informative)

opk (149665) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832230)

Globs are more powerful: **/*.c will recursively search for .c files: much quicker to type than find.
You can match file types: e.g. *(@) will get you symlinks. *(U) gets files owned by you.

Syntax for alternation is a lot easier. No @(this|that) or !(*.f). Instead, it is (this|that) and ^*.f

Next point is completion. It includes a vast range of definitions so completion works well for lots of commands. The completion system handles completing parts of words so it better handles user@host completion. You get descriptions with completion match listings. Completion also has a really powerful context sensitive configuration system so you can make it work the way you like.

It has modules. For running a simple shell script it will actually use less space than bash because it doesn't need to load the line editor and other interactive related code into memory.

There is much much more. It takes a while to learn everything but if you just enable the completion functions (autoload -U compinit; compinit) you'll find it better than bash or tcsh from day 1.

Re:First "zsh rules" post! (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832279)

Bigs ones for me:
  • A sane auto-completion system. That is, "cvs <tab>" gives a list of all of the commands that cvs understands. "cvs -<tab>" (same as above but tabbing after typing "-") gives a list of all of the options that cvs understands. These are good things. Now, in fairness, bash also has a command completion library. Unfortunately, it's implemented as a huge set of Bash functions. In zsh, "set|wc" returns 179 lines. In bash, "set|wc" returns 3,961 lines. The net effect is that zsh's system is noticeably faster and less polluting to the local environment.
  • Modules. Wrappers for TCP connections, a built-in cron thingy, and PCRE are all loadable modules to do tricky things easily.
  • Lots of pre-defined things. Load the "colors" and "zsh/terminfo" modules and you get defined associative arrays like $fg, which emits terminal-appropriate escape codes to set the foreground color of printed text. The command "echo ${fg[red]}red text${fg[default]}normal text" prints "red text" in red, and "normal text" in your default color.

Bash is a good shell, and I have nothing bad to say about it. However, zsh seems to have been designed from the ground up by power users and for power users. I absolutely love it and everyone that I've given a example config file to (to get them running with little hassle) has permanently switched.

Re:First "zsh rules" post! (2, Informative)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832039)

Indeed: I've been a zsh convert for a while now (since I'm a slowish and lazy typer), and zsh is just the best shell environment by far.

As far as scripting is concerned, however, there's not a great deal of difference between zsh and bash, since the former is quite compatible with the latter.

Re:First "zsh rules" post! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832068)

Will everyone stop with the Bash bashing, please?

Re:First "zsh rules" post! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832287)

I wouldn't say parent bashed The Bash, he merely praised The ZSH.

Re:First "zsh rules" post! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832114)

can you give an exmaple of your .zshrc or whatever dot file you use?

1st post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9831937)

1st post! squared!

A new version? (5, Interesting)

moonbender (547943) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831938)

Hell, I didn't even know bash was still in active development. It was always just bash to me, not bash-x.y.z. But then I guess I wouldn't notice the difference, really.

Dear Apple haters... (5, Informative)

TheHonestTruth (759975) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832033)

From the release notes:

Several bug fixes for POSIX compliance came in from Apple; their assistance is appreciated.

It looks like Apple is giving back to the community, and to a fundamental tool.

To the parent: I'm in the same boat. I thought bash 3?? What is there to add?? Looks like multibyte char support (sorry, I'm are a dum Amer'kin).

-truth

Re:Dear Apple haters... (2, Interesting)

Fred Or Alive (738779) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832218)

The one thing I find weird with Apple adding stuff to bash is that's Mac OS X's default shell is tcsh. But it is nice of Apple anyway...

once upon a time... (5, Informative)

TheHonestTruth (759975) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832259)

tsch was the deafult for OS X and for Jaguar I believe, but they moved to bash [macnn.com] for Panther.

-truth

Re:Dear Apple haters... (1)

SlamMan (221834) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832337)

They changed that in 10.3

bash (-1, Redundant)

ibmman85 (643041) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831945)

bashbashbashbash just fun to say. wonder if theyll be updating the cs systems at school, or if they ever really update the cs systems at school...

Re:bash (1)

ViolentGreen (704134) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832341)

Well where I went they didnt for long enough that java was still 1.2.x. Of course now that I have graduated, they got a bunch of brand new G5s.

On the list of changes: (5, Funny)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831949)

System-specific changes for: SCO Unix 3.2

What are these, I wonder? Something along the lines of changing the prompt to always display [litigious@bastards]$, perhaps?

Re:On the list of changes: (4, Insightful)

grub (11606) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832236)


I'm wondering why it's in the "LINUX" section of /. Bash is used across many different OSs.

Re:On the list of changes: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832293)

Amusing comment noted but to stop any salacious rumours in the bud I shall quote the changelog -- cunningly named changelog in the archive.
SCO Unix 3.2, like Solaris, requires that the system's `timezone' variable be declared as long

Neat (5, Interesting)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831954)

Someone tell me why I want this. The Usenet post doesn't seem to explain what's so exciting about it, besides a bunch of boring bug-fixes, and some esoteric-sounding syntax changes.

Re:Neat (5, Funny)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832035)

Don't worry about it. Just let the adults keep using their computers and you can keep using your as a toy.

(It's a shell, it's not susposed to be exciting)

Re:Neat (1, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832061)

Why a major version release with only minor point-release changes?

From what I can tell, bash 3.0 doesn't do anything that 2.x didn't do. Except, no doubt, break every script in my system if I were to install it.

Re:Neat (5, Funny)

ellem (147712) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832135)

As part of the deal with Apple making fixes they need to get Bash to version 10 ASAP for Bash X marketing.

Re:Neat (5, Informative)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832159)

The main difference is full internationalisation support, which deserves a full version upgrade :)

Unless you have scripts which used the old slightly dubious (but still not bad) internationalisation then you should notice no differences at all. There are a couple of really, really stupid looking scripts which now produce something different, but in almost every single case the new answer is I'm sure what everyone expected to appear before :)

Re:Neat (5, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832146)

(It's a shell, it's not susposed to be exciting)

Pfft... I thought geeks browsed Slashdot!

Re:Neat (4, Funny)

A Big Gnu Thrush (12795) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832297)

Pfft... I thought geeks browsed Slashdot!

Real geeks do browse /.

Only lusers post.

Oh, wait...damn.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832052)

Because it's the latest version, duh! Remember, if you're running Slackware 9 on a Pentium III 2600MHz with 512MB of RAM, you are so five minutes ago. Part of the thing about being a certain type of geek is that you must have the latest versions of everything, and must be able to spend all day telling your friends how you upgraded to the latest Perl last night, and you're looking forward to some of the new features on the latest point-point release of Python tonight that you plan to download and compile yourself, preferably with -funroll-loops, on your shiny Gentoo [funroll-loops.org] box.

Re:Neat (2, Informative)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832139)

if you're running Slackware 9 on a Pentium III 2600MHz with 512MB of RAM, you are so five minutes ago.

No. You are 15 months ago. Slackware 9 was succeeded by 9.1 on 2003-09-26 and 10 on 2004-06-23.

Re:Neat (5, Informative)

Brad Moore (11260) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832088)

According to the changelog, all the messages are internationalized now, so if you spoke a language other than English, you can get error messages and such in your native language.

Re:Neat (5, Funny)

KodaK (5477) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832277)

you can get error messages and such in your native language.

This is so going to suck. If I get an error message that I'm unfamiliar with I'll plug it into google. Even if the hit is in a language I don't understand I can usually work out what a solution to my problem may be by looking at the command sequences posted in replies.

Now I'll lose that ability just because a bunch of whiners (the rest of the world) want error messages in *their* language. That's just not fair, as it doesn't benefit me.

I propose an immediate reversal of the i18n changes introduced into Bash 3.0. Who's with my jingoistic ass?

Re:Neat (4, Funny)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832091)

It supports a new sequence brace expansion which should make snarfing porn easier and more efficent.

Does it get more exciting then that?

-Peter

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832185)

That is a welcome addition indeed. Until now, I've been using curl (as opposed to wget) to "snarf porn". It's worth looking at as it has features besides sequence expansion.

Re:Neat (2, Informative)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832205)

You mean something like
wget http://porn.com/image{1..300}.jpg ?

Neat! (assuming I got the syntax right;)

Article transcript, in case of slashdotting... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9831963)

Ha! Gotcha! No, /. can't /. Google yet. :)

Not much changed (5, Insightful)

opk (149665) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831965)

Doesn't seem to be much changed given the version number increase. [[ =~ ]] can match regexes and it can do zsh style {1..3} expansions. Improved multibyte support too. There were bigger changes in some of the 2.0x updates.

Re:Not much changed (1)

gdbear (49878) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832229)

Posix compliance ... hrmm... seems like a change warranting a full version increase.

New features? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9831985)

Can it make me coffee?

My sister and I get started... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9831988)

I'm writing these experiences with my sister and neighbors were how I remember them. Some of the dialog is added for readability, as most of it is forgotten now, but I remember the fear, anticipation, and lust that I felt at the time. Relating the incidents, helps bring it back to life. I knew that we were doing something that could get us in trouble, and the forbidden nature definitely added to the excitement for all of us.

The first experience with my sister was the very next day, after showing both my sisters some of my father's porn. At the time both my parents were outside in the yard, talking to a neighbor and Kathy was staying the night with a friend. Jackie asked if I could show her the books again.

We went to my room, where I pulled the books out from their hiding spot. She picked one with mostly pictures, and started asking questions again. I asked her what she thought about the pictures. She responded that they were strange, and that they made her feel naughty. She asked me if I ever played with my 'boner.'

I said "I wanted you and Kathy to play with it last night. Since you wouldn't, I did after I got back to my room. Do you ever play with yourself?"

She was reluctant. "Kathy played with herself last night, when she thought I was asleep."

I was surprised. "How did you know?"

"I heard her." After some prompting, Jackie admitted that she played with herself the previous night as well.

Pointing to a picture of a boy going down on a girl, she asked if my dick looked like that when it was hard. I asked if she wanted to see for herself. Our family was never very modest, and I know that she had seen me without my clothes before, but she had never seen me with a hardon.

After checking that my parents were still outside, we agreed to view each other close up. We both pulled our shorts and underwear down.

My sister sat on my bed and I stood directly in front of her. She took a few moments to observe and comment that it was weird, nothing like hers. Afterward, I spent some time investigating her. She had a small growth of hair, mostly coming in above her pussy.

Being the older brother, I took the initiative, and reached forward to spread her pussy lips. When I used my fingers to spread her labia, she spread her legs a little more and took a breath. I then ran my fingers over the length of her pussy.

She asked if she could touch my 'boner.' I asked her if she wanted to try some of the things that she saw in the book. "Yeah, I wanted to last night, but was too afraid after Kathy said no."

I showed her how to grasp my dick; she took to it like she had been doing it forever. While she played with me, I ran my fingers over her pussy. After a very short while I got scared that my parents would return, so I suggested that she take one of the books and the little light that I used to read in bed. She could could read it in the dark, until I snuck into her room.

She took the one that she had been looking through. It had many pictures of young people in different sexual positions. I don't honestly remember if the pictures were actually of kids, or of actors portraying kids. I just knew that Jackie was interested.
That night, I easily snuck into Jackie's room. We both slept with our doors closed, so if we were quiet, there was little risk of getting caught.

Jackie was awake, when I slid into her room. When I asked what she was doing, she pulled her covers back to show me the book, the flashlight, and that she was already naked.

She told me to take my shorts off. I kept my t-shirt on and sat between my sister's twin beds. I asked her that since she had the book, what did she want to try first. She hesitated. "You pick."

I had a girlfriend at the time, and we did some petting. I was keenly interested in knowing about oral sex, but was afraid that I would be taking things too fast, so I told her that I wanted to know how to touch a girl in a way that would get them most excited. At the time, I had no idea that every woman is different.

She replied that she wasn't sure. So I asked her to show me what she was doing when I got into her room. She moved to the floor, and I moved in place to get a good view. I watched her run her fingers over her clit. Occasionally, she would dip a finger into her pussy to get it wet. I asked her if she ever put a finger inside herself. She said that she did when it was feeling really good.
My hand replaced hers, and I mimicked her movements. I asked her if it felt good. She responded that it felt so much better than when she did it for herself.

We maneuvered ourselves to lay side-by-side in a 69 position. Lying on our sides, she crooked her leg up to give me easy access to her pussy.

She grasped my dick, and at the age of fourteen, I knew that I would cum really quickly. I told her how good it felt, but she would need to slow down. At the time, her technique wasn't very good, but she made up for it with her enthusiasm.

I really wanted to insert a finger into my sister's pussy. After a couple minutes of masturbating her I pushed a finger inside, and started to finger fuck her. She kept telling me how good it felt, and not to stop. Suddenly, she let out a series of sighs as her orgasm hit. It was our first of so many together.

As I would find out later that night, Jackie's orgasms were very powerful. I would bring her off and watch her pussy literally spasm, very much like a man's.

After her orgasm, I went into the bathroom to get some paper.

She asked why. I told her that we needed to clean up the mess after I had my orgasm. Later, we kept a towel hidden for that.

She wondered about what it was like for a boy, because she was reading about it and really wanted to see me cum.

I sat on my knees, while she masturbated me. At the time, it was the most powerful orgasm of my life. I felt so much lust.

After cleaning up, Jackie was ready again, and asked if I could lick her like the boy in the pictures did to his sister. She sat on the edge of her bed, as I got my first taste of my sister's pussy. That night, I ate her to a number of orgasms, and she masturbated me to orgasm again. At the time she was still reluctant to give me head.

We were both hooked. Over the next few weeks, we got together every chance we could. I even slid into bed with Jackie, while Kathy was in the bed next to us. We learned exactly what the other liked.

We talked about whether we should 'go all the way.' I told her that it wasn't a good idea, because she might get pregnant. At the time, she was almost twelve, but was already having periods. However, I would simulate sex with her by rubbing my dick over her pussy.

We found that we both loved oral sex, both giving and receiving.
Recently, she admitted that still her favorite thing was to give head, and I admitted to her that I love eating pussy more than anything.

Ironically, I seemed to be more cautious of my mother finding the books than finding my sister and I having sex together. While we knew that if we were caught, there would be hell to pay, we didn't take every precaution to avoid it, until it nearly happened.

Mom was downstairs preparing dinner, and we were in my room, naked from the waist down. I was sitting back on my knees in the middle of my bedroom floor with a very hard dick jutting up.

Jackie leaned forward with her back to the door. I already had eaten her to a quick orgasm, and now it was my turn. I liked it when she would get the head of my dick real wet with her mouth. Jackie would alternate between sliding her hands and mouth up and down my dick. The feeling was incredible, but invariably Jackie's face and hands would show the signs of wet sex.

So, this evening, she was working me to orgasm, while I reached around her with my fingers to diddle her clit. When she'd lift her head she would encourage me and tell me what to do.

Just as I was getting ready to shoot, Kathy came into my room to tell us that dinner was ready. She froze halfway through her sentence, and just stared at us.

Jackie turned around real quick, and pulled her t-shirt down over her hips, but there was no denying her wet face, and my wet dick pointng in Kathy's direction. For a few seconds Kathy didn't say anything. Then she looked at me and said "Mom better not catch you. She'll kill you if she finds out. You guys need to be more careful."

That was it. Kathy didn't tell anyone, and from then on, we were more careful about getting caught. I don't know if Kathy mentioned anything to Jackie about it later. I know at the time she was a little mad at me, but continued to let Jackie and me fool around, even when we brought Jackie's friends into our sex play.

I really hope that you enjoyed reading this as much as I did writing/reminiscing. I will continue as time permits.

Bayzel

People still use a shell for Linux? (1, Flamebait)

SollyCholly (777496) | more than 10 years ago | (#9831990)

Ever since I installed Fedora Core I've used the GNOME GUI exclusively with no problems and no descrease in functionality. It make administration of my Linux network a breeze.

Why type when you can just point and click?

Re:People still use a shell for Linux? (3, Insightful)

ylikone (589264) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832038)

Because you can NEVER be quite sure of what files are being manipulated when you are using a GUI.

Why use a middleman when you have access to the source?

Re:People still use a shell for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832316)

That's why I write a C program for every file interaction I make... I don't trust nothing but the syscalls and the compiler!

Heck, the shell could be doing ANYTHING, man... Who knows!? There may be codes in there that are like, I dunno, MESSING with my home directory, dude.

Insighful my ass.

Re:People still use a shell for Linux? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832049)

Pretty much the same way here, except that I use Knoppix instead of Fedora.

I've been using Linux for years, but - being a non-developer - I'm finding less and less reason to use the commandline (unless I'm using a CLI app such as lynx, bitchx or dopewars).

Re:People still use a shell for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832115)

Dopewars!

The reason the CLI was invented!

Re:People still use a shell for Linux? (5, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832216)

Why type when you can just point and click?
Batch jobs. You just can't beat
for i in img*.jpg; do convert $i $(basename $i .jpg).png; done


Everything else, I do in emacs...

Re:People still use a shell for Linux? (1)

rikkus-x (526844) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832312)

for i in img*.jpg; do convert $i $i:r.png; done

Slightly shorter way for zsh, in case you were using it already and didn't know about the $var:x stuff.

Rik

Re:People still use a shell for Linux? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832347)

for i in img*.jpg; do convert $i png:${i/.jpg/.png}; done

Re:People still use a shell for Linux? (2, Informative)

datastalker (775227) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832269)

Ok, please tell me how I can change the SOA on 150 domain files all at once with pointing and clicking. In bash, it's: sed -i s/oldSOA/newSOA/g * Until there's a way to do search and replace on any number of files that's easier than that, the command line will still be useful.

GUI is good but... (1)

deadmongrel (621467) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832328)

you can't use a GUI interface for ever thing(admin i mean). and switching between tasks is much easier with cli.for remote admin bash+screen+ssh is heaven. agreed. Point and click is easier but not always. I find cli is much easier when doing system administration(example samba, network issues).

Bashing linux at slashdot (2, Funny)

badriram (699489) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832001)

I am looking at the title going a Linux bash headline on slashdot, now i must have been dreaming. But I am sure that i would not post that here, knowing i would loose all my karma in one stroke.

Bash the ladies at.... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832016)

Bash your very own kernel toy [privatepar...imited.com] Visit your nearest location today.

Apple helping out (5, Interesting)

Macka (9388) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832019)


Several bug fixes for POSIX compliance came in from Apple; their assistance is appreciated.

It's nice to see yet more contributions from Apple to the OSS community.

Re:Apple helping out (5, Insightful)

hot_Karls_bad_cavern (759797) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832194)

"It's nice to see yet more contributions from Apple to the OSS community."

Right on, brother. (This is not bashing apple before i get started!) They have done something that no one else in the *nix world has done: shit-hot gui. People can blather about this and that, but to deny that Apple has created one of the most user-friendly, beautiful, slick gui's for *nix is crazy. I'd like to continue seeing Apple release more help to OSS. Keep the real money makers to themselves (for now), but allow more dev's to release usefull changes back to the community that helped build it ya know?

You are 100% correct that it's nice to see them making another move like this...even if it was a lil' one :)

Re:Apple helping out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832208)

Nice to see yet more obvious pointing out with an agenda. ;-)

Re:Apple helping out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832225)

"It's nice to see yet more contributions from Apple to the OSS community."

Bash is an official GNU project so really, Apple are contributing to the Free Software community not the OSS community.

Re:Apple helping out (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832320)

SHUT YOUR CAKE HOLE YOU FUCKING PEDANTIC SHITHEAD

# Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
# Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.

Movie Tie-in (4, Funny)

Bistronaut (267467) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832055)

They should have called the movie Bourne Again [imdb.com] .

It's...it's... (5, Funny)

FreemanPatrickHenry (317847) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832058)

The Bourne Again and Again and Again Shell! Again!

Re:It's...it's... (1)

HackLore (31416) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832169)

Heh. I've been craving I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again lately. The eurovision pun contest is the best.

Re:It's...it's... (1)

rlanctot (310750) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832241)

Evil Bash!

"Good, bad, I'm the one with the command line..."

er, wait... nevermind.

Hail to the King, baby.

sco sco sco (1, Funny)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832067)

**b. System-specific changes for: SCO Unix 3.2, Tandem.**

I wonder.

if sco then blowup

When are they going to upgrade MY shell? (4, Funny)

g_adams27 (581237) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832107)


Yeah, Bash 3.0 is great and all, but when are the bash people going to upgrade rbash? Man, I can't do anything with that shell!

Re:When are they going to upgrade MY shell? (2, Interesting)

opk (149665) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832299)

It's probably not too hard to break out of the restricted shell if you really put your mind to it. I've seen a shell where "command -p sh" would do the job. It isn't that widely used and is rarely used for anything where security really matters. I've never heard of anyone doing a serious study of it. If security matters to you, I wouldn't rely on it.

bash = "embrace and extend" proprietary crap (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832147)

I seriously hope they've fixed that bag. Since a lot of GNU/LNUX distros don't even ship with a real sh, but symlink to bash. Some random linux bozo makes a #!/bin/sh script thinking it will be portable, but bash (at least 2.x does) forgets to switch off some features when invoked as /bin/sh, so in the end you write a non-portable script. And listen, linux people, /bin/bash is not standard!

Alfred, tired of fixing stupid scripts that assume the whole world has bash in /bin.

Re:bash = "embrace and extend" proprietary crap (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832318)

You are probably right about bash being non standard but if you need bash for a script just install bash. It's free software and most probably supported on your platform of choice.

It's not like a vendor lock in or anything like that.

Re:bash = "embrace and extend" proprietary crap (1)

IWannaBeAnAC (653701) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832355)

Maybe you have a point about bash extentions versus POSIX sh, but in no sense of the word is bash "proprietary". It is free software! It runs on every unix-like operating system under the sun!

Yaawn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832158)

How come this fails to excite me?

Looks great, but prefer Ash for scripts (2, Interesting)

Etcetera (14711) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832171)


Looks like a nice Unicode-savvy release that should help with dealing with international languages at the command line. And yay to Apple for giving back (again). When will people finally accept that Apple is indeed helping out the OSS community through GCC, bash, and other tools...?

Kind of off-topic, but for speed purposes in scripts that have to run fast, I find nothing better or more convenient than Ash, especially on systems where /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash.

Does anyone know any history on this shell? Is it a clone of the original bourne shell or of bash? I can't seem to find anything useful on Google ...

Re:Looks great, but prefer Ash for scripts (1)

mihalis (28146) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832301)

As I understand it, ash was written by Kenneth Almquist. I used to see his name on some of the Ada related mailing lists and newsgroups.

Bourne Supremacy (2, Funny)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832174)

I can't be the only one who snickers every time I see a commercial for this film. Think Geek used to have a "Bourne Again Believer" t-shirt but I think they dropped it. Maybe I am the only one.

Help me to like bash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832177)

I still use tcsh (not for shell scripts, just interactively), essentially for a single feature. If someone can tell me how to do this in bash, I might try it again.

If you type a partial command and then press alt-p or esc-p, tcsh pulls up the most recent command in the history that matches what you typed. Not in the "!partialcmd" sense of executing something that matches, but pulling it up for editing on the command line.

Is there a key (or way to get a key) that does that in bash or not?

Re:Help me to like bash (1)

alyandon (163926) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832217)

ctrl-r + type partial command gives similar behavior. Pressing ctrl-r repeatedly steps through matches in the command history.

POSIX Compliance issues. (5, Informative)

Ashe Tyrael (697937) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832179)

There's been an interesting little problem caused for people like Gentoo with the updates in bash 3.0.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=58703 [gentoo.org]

Just a simple move towards compliance breaks most of their scripts, so they've had to patch it out.

Lovely.

MSH (4, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832181)

Ha ha, you dorks, use MSH [wikipedia.org] like a man!

I wonder how this will get modded? :-o

Re:MSH (1)

destinedforgreatness (753788) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832332)

oh man

Although still in development, a number of key features of MSH have already been revealed, including: * commandlets all inherit certain options, allowing the user to choose things such as the level of interaction and how to deal with errors - including a "suspend" feature, which allows the user to enter a new command shell, investigate a problem, and then continue with the original command. A simple mechanism is built-in for the programmer to define the prompts to be shown in such circumstances. * options are generally whole words, but can be specified to the minimum number of letters necessarily (e.g. the option -show-detailed-information could be entered as -s if no other option began with 's') * tab completion * the ability to assign the output of a command to a variable, which will then be an object or array of objects inspectable in any way desired

switches? tabs? piped output? way to innovate!

Tab completion / expansion changes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832192)

Does anyone know if tab completion has been updated?

Specifically, the command-specific changes such as;

mount [press tab]

to see all available mount points (not just the current directory).

I know there are add-ins, though it would be good to know it's always there.

I'm still waiting for... (1)

misleb (129952) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832210)

command.com-3.0. But I guess a more robust cmd.exe would do as well.

POSIX (5, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832211)

This statement had me a little confused for a while:

Several bug fixes for POSIX compliance came in from Apple; their assistance is appreciated.

Then I looked through the POSIX spec, and sure enough I found this section, which explained things:

POSIX section 23.4.18 (SHELL):

To the extent possible on the terminal hardware, the shell
shall present to the user the appearance mimicing a translucent plastic material. The shell rendering material model should incorporate prominent specular highlights suggesting a shiny smooth surface. The shell should cast fuzzy shadows on any user interface elements that lay below it.

I wonder where I can find showtimes for this movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832226)

But I'm confused. Isn't this supposed to be the second movie of the trilogy?

Just wondering... (3, Interesting)

Kynde (324134) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832248)


What is so hot about bash, e.g. compared to zsh?

Seriously, I'm not trying to start a flame war here. This is coming from a really long term zsh user because back when I was just starting unix and linux a fellow bearded unix guru told me something along the lines "go with zsh, it's the best" (thas was about -95). And I've never looked back, but now seing bash being the default shell in most distros I've began to wonder what's going on. Perhaps over the years bash overtook zsh or there are some hidden qualities in bash that I don't know about.

Anyone with some insight on _both_ shells would be greatly appreciated.

Re:Just wondering... (2, Interesting)

jandrese (485) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832348)

Bash is so hot because it is the default shell in most Linux installs. Zsh is hidden off somewhere in the package system, so you have to know about it to try it out. Because all of these people who make distros started with Bash, they assume everyone else is using it too and perpetuate the cycle.

It's the same reason IE is still the de-facto browser on the internet, for most people it came with the system. Also, if you jump around on lab machines or on other people's machine, more often than not they don't have zsh installed and you're forced to remember all of the bash syntax anyway. That said, I still use zsh for all of my machines, because the completion engine is smarter and I've got many k worth of .zshrc files built up over the years that I'd hate to have to port over to another shell.

Breaks Gentoo (4, Informative)

Kujah (630784) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832254)

Gentoo's various scripts rely on the fact that /bin/sh is usually symlinked to /bin/bash. With 3.0, when invoked as /bin/sh, bash behaves as it should for the first time, which caused some problems. (which are now fixed, by the way)

Can arrow key history be like Matlab's? (3, Interesting)

dara (119068) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832323)

I read the announcement and it mentions "History traversal with arrow keys", but what I would really like doesn't seem to be mentioned (but perhaps it is possible with bash-2.05, I'm not much of a shell expert). In Matlab, the up-arrow key searches the history for commands that match all the characters on the line. No characters and it acts like a normal bash arrow, if "figure, plot" is at the beginning of the line, it will quickly scroll through all plotting commands that have been entered at the shell.

Any idea if this is possible?

Dara Parsavand

Bash isn't Linux (3, Insightful)

gorim (700913) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832344)

Bash is a portable tool that existed long before Linux did. It is not specific or particular to Linux. So why in the world does this get posted under the category of Linux ?

Good news for us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9832358)

...and unaBASHedly so, if I may say so!

History timestamps! (5, Informative)

straponego (521991) | more than 10 years ago | (#9832359)

Bash can now store timestamps in the history and save them to the history file. This alone is worth the upgrade for me. The option to erase duplicates is pretty nice too.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?