Talk:Bash (Unix shell)

message: I have heard this term used - in what I think was a mildly negative manner - to describe a feature or behaviour of Bash that is an extension of or at variance with in some circumstances either (?) the POSIX standards or other *nix sh-like command interpreters. A Wikipedia redirection bought me to Bash_(Unix_shell)#Portability but with not even a reference to this term.  Further DuckDuckGo-fu (like Google-fu but DuckDuckGo don't track where you look) led me to http://mywiki.wooledge.org/Bashism?action=show&redirect=bashism which does seem a useful starting point, but it might be worthwhile to expand upon this term and that there are differences between bash and sh.
SlySven (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bashisms 

message: If the latter, why does Wikipedia have it? Is wikipedia a platform for assign logos to random things?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.52.188 (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The image caption describes it as the "Official GNU Bash logo." If that's not good enough for you, a simple Google search on "official bash logo" turns up the site , which describes the creation of the logo in 2015. The search also turns up links to the logo in the bash project's official repository. Eleuther (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I call BS. Where does that page say GNU/Free Software Foundation authorized it or at least the authors of Bash: Brian Fox and Chet Ramey? Just because a website advertises itself as something, that does not mean that's legit. The official page of Bash is at . I don't see a friggin' logo there. That site you linked is just trying to use the logo to promote themselves (Prospect One). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.52.188 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit crabby this mornin', are we? Thanks for mentioning Chet Ramey, the current maintainer of bash. On the official bash page, which you linked to, the second paragraph says, "The maintainer also has a bash page." If you follow that link to Chet Ramey's bash page, there you will see the logo. So he, at least, seems to think the logo has some official status. You could also have followed the link "30,000 people voted for the best iteration" (on the bashlogo.com page that I mentioned earlier). This leads to an article on opensource.com, about the project to create the logo, and Ramey's role in it, and his sanctioning of it. Please see the github page official-bash-logo for more information if you need it. This all seems to me like open source working the way it should, rather than (as you seem to assume) everyone involved acting unethically and in bad faith. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for chiming in but that logo is not official. The official GNU Bash page does NOT display the logo. Therefore, it's fan art.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.25.44 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Chet Ramey is not merely a "fan".  He's the maintainer of Bash.  The source page on github declares that this is the "Official GNU Bash Logo", that the client is Chet Ramey and that it is copyright 2016 by the Free Software Foundation.  I find no reason to doubt that it is exactly what it says it is.  I'm not persuaded that it matters whether FSF includes this logo at .  2016 is recent history for bash and it seems likely the gnu page hasn't been updated. To question the authenticity of this as the official Bash logo, I think you need way better evidence.  Msnicki (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo official or FAN ART? 

message: This section appears to be almost completely original research. Its claims are not expressed anywhere in the sources cited, rather, the citations all link to basic information about Bash or dictionary definitions of respective words. 
As an example, the section states that "With that pun, it would seem, is added an allusion: possibly to the Hindu or Buddhist idea of reincarnation; possibly to the Christian idiom known as 'being born again;' or quite possibly just to the more abstract idea of renewal." There is no source that makes that claim, and I am left to assume that this is an editor's own interpretation. As such, I am marking it as original research. Abitowlish (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible original research