Re: Another shell scripting question

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

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

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