Talk:Almquist shell

message: The ash included in *BSD as /bin/sh does include job control. There is also command line editing though it is not enabled by default.
----
There was another shell named "ash" (or "adsh") which was the "adventure shell", like a text adventure game (Zork or whatever). AnonMoos 18:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ash included in *BSD

message: The article is pretty clear that it is not describing a Linux-specific program, so merging it would damage this source of information Tedickey 14:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Merge Suggestion

message: Red Hat/Fedora Linux uses a program called nash  to interpret scripts during start-up.  However, despite the name it does not appear to be related to ash.  I've checked the versions of nash back to summer 2001 without finding any traces of ash — but perhaps they used ash originally, and at some point decided to write their own program instead. Rune Kock (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Hat nash? 

message: Reading the topic, it appears that the editor has the notion that anyone using the shell, whether they're modifying it or not is automatically a primary source.  Some clarification is needed to retain the tag. TEDickey (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically people who are (re)distributing a product are not counted as independent third party sources for the purposes of wikipedia notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh.  Do you have a pointer to one of the guidelines supporting your opinion? TEDickey (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  primary-sources tag 

message: There is no mention how ash is licensed... --Arny (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Debian's copy (dash) lists a BSD 3-clause license.  That's likely the same license in the others, barring some possible modification to use the 2-clause license. TEDickey (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  License? 

message: The page on dash has major notability problems: the only reference that can be counted as third-party is the one to ubuntu.com. Also, all the significant material on the other page is in fact already present on this one: dash is a minor modification to ash and it's used in Ubuntu and Debian as the boot shell. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I performed the merge. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Debian Almquist shell]] 

message: At least dash seems to be non-portable as it depends on many GNUisms that are not guaranteed to exist on a typical UNIX platform. Schily (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portability 

message: Many features came from ksh88, and so scripts generally do run under ksh derivatives/clones with no modifications. So perhaps the article should say "ksh-specific" features --Ismael Luceno (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You really have to be careful because there are so many different versions with different lineages.  The final true Almquist version was a fairly barebones Bourne shell clone, for a number of years the primary development was as the NetBSD shell which is where most of the other variants seem to have forked from.  The NetBSD team made a large number of enhancements to the orginal code but for POSIX compliance rather than ksh compatibility (in fact I tend to informally consider the NetBSD /bin/sh as the reference POSIX shell, it's a lot closer than anything else I've seen).  The original POSIX shell specification looked at lot like the traditional Bourne shell, but the revised version (1997?) looked a lot more like ksh88.  While many features may have originated in ksh, once they have made it into POSIX they can hardly be regarded as ksh-specific. 3142 (talk) 12:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bash-specific featuers may not be so 

message: A recent edit removed a see-also for test (Unix).
Perhaps someone had added that see-also after reading this page TEDickey (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  topicality of ''test''