Re: Another shell scripting question

2004-05-21 Thread David Piniella
Is it just more efficient in resources to use plain #! /bin/sh rather than bash? No, it just makes your script more portable to systems that might not have bash. Some systems that /do/ have bash installed have /bin/sh linked to it, but some don't have bash by default or choice (Solaris, Fre

Re: Another shell scripting question

2004-05-21 Thread Tim Connors
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 21 May 2004 01:39:55 +0200: > > --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > also sprach Martin McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.05.20.2126 +=

Re: Another shell scripting question

2004-05-20 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Martin McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.05.20.2126 +0200]: > Is it just more efficient in resources to use plain #! /bin/sh > rather than bash? surely not. /bin/sh is generally linked to bash (... by default, that is). -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read th

Another shell scripting question

2004-05-20 Thread Martin McCormick
A response to another poster peaked my curiosity. > Incidentally, there is no reason to make it a bash > script rather than vanilla sh, and you can simplify the script by using > exec: I have been writing shell scripts for a bit over fourteen years so I am not new to this, but I u