Does setting of BASH as the default shell has any effect?
Linux - NewbieThis Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question?
If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
"sh" is a symlink to "bash" on my old Red Hat box too.
Since "bash" has evolved from sh, it should be backwards compatible with it. This implies that you can replace "sh" with "bash" anywhere you like, but not the other way around.
Try "ls -l /bin/bash" (or ls -l /usr/bin/bash) to see if you have bash installed already.
@soggycornflake: indeed, both are not 100% identical.
But Bash should be able to run sh scripts without many problems though (ie it should be more or less "backwards compatible", otherwise the already mentioned symlinks wouldn't make much sense).
On most distros, sh is just a symlink to bash. Bash is backwards compatible with sh and behaves just like sh if called using the "sh" command. On other Unix OSes, sh is a symlink either ksh or pdksh, but bash is usually available as an option.