what diff between shell in linux sh ,csh ,ksh,bash ???
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.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
oh man there are allot of differences.
so much so that changing your login shell can make your system unusable unless you test it allot
basically they evolved toward the bash as a modern shell
some of the shells have basically similar syntax sh ksh bash and zsh are all based on sh syntax.
sh can do almost nothing -- not even user name lookup or job control
-- the others work towards bash which is the most fully functional of the bunch
there is no real reason to switch away from bash to any of the earlier less useful sh type shells
i would say that ksh would have become the linux shell accept it wasn't free.
so bourne shell (sh) which became the posix sys v shell looks almost exactly like ksh.
bash is almost the same based on the Bourne shells language with other c shell bits.
again even these aren't 1 to 1 the same and switching requires lots of testing.
csh and tcsh are based on a different input language
more modern you have zsh which is like bash
rc and es are based on yet another input language
they are larger and more complex
perhaps can do usefull things who knows.
they look overly complex to me.
1. Actually while the original KORN (ksh) shell was not free, the pd-ksh shell was and is.
2. ksh is the default shell on aix system, some solaris systems, and most HP-UX systems. It is used in Linux in open-soource form and version.
3. more shells have been ported, developed, invented, or customized for Linux and FreeBSD than any other OS family I know.
Every shell has unique features or implementation of features. Most have features specific to interactive mode operation, but some are specificaly designed for non-interactive mode operation. There are even shells such as IBSH (Iron Bound SHell) that are security utilities designed to PREVENT the use if features or commands.
Trying to list all of the differences in a forum would be like trying to answer the question" what is the difference between a duck?"!