8 ms·
My understanding is that sh is a specification, not an implementation. Most images will either have bash or ash installed. ash, being lightweight, is the choic
by cfeliped 5y ago
My understanding is that sh is a specification, not an implementation.
Most images will either have bash or ash installed. ash, being lightweight, is the choice of alpine and related distros.
- asveikau 5y agoThis is a bit of a Linux specific view of the universe. Yes posix has a standard for how sh should work. But there were specific implementations of sh, and you would get those on commercial Unix or *BSD. Later shells came in and filled some gaps. OpenBSD still has ksh by default. Linux distros had bash as their /bin/sh.
- cfeliped 5y agoI didn't know that. Thank you for the explanation!