Me too.

"sue do" sounds like voodoo><. I say "sue doh".

How about "bash"?
In the University I'm going, every time I say "bash", some teacher corrects me with whether bourne shell, or B-shell. I can get bash being "bourne again shell", so "bourne shell" is close, but what the hell is wrong with just saying bash? Technically it's more correct than just "bourne shell".

I am almost certain you should say "bash".

Remember, bash ≠ Bourne Shell (sh), it's a clone with some improvements.

And its easier to say bash.

I prefer to just bring up a list of the root directories, then point to the directory in question.

In fact, at least in later Fedoras, 'sh' is simply a link to 'bash'. So, you're using bash whether you wanted to or not.

And I think the strictly correct name is "bourne again shell", anyone I've ever talked to simply calls it "bash". And your teacher is too strict if he requires you to say its entire name.

Hi,

If that's what the Prof wants then repeat it that way until you graduate or pass that class.

I used to pronounce 'etc' as ee tee cee until I heard 'etsee' used in a podcast, and the new pronunciation stuck.
For several of the system directories, I will pronounce them based on the word they are short hand for.
/var as in variable
/lib as in library
/sys as in system
/bin as in binary

At least there isn't any problem with /home or /media. Maybe they thought better than to name them /hom and /med to prevent them from be being pronounce as in the words homonym and medical.

The presence of the StrongARM version indicates it's probably an acronym.

RISC - risk
CISC - Sisk (not kisk)

Bash is bash. sh is Bourne shell. They are two different things.
However, bash's syntax is (at least very nearly) a superset of sh's. If you are writing scripts that are standard sh, you should call them Bourne shell scripts or sh scripts. ('Shell scripts' is acceptable but unclear). If you are using bash-specific features, you must call them bash scripts.

If you are referring to the interactive command line, call it what it is. Which is probably bash. In that sense, calling bash "Bourne shell" is like calling OpenOffice.org Impress "Powerpoint".

And if your teacher doesn't understand this, don't study from them.

I could understand if you wanted to distinguish a Bourne-shell script from a bash script in a situation where that was absolutely necessary, but if you're just speaking in general, wouldn't "shell script" suffice?

@Kenny there's no article called "Sudó"...what's with the WP link?

If you're speaking very generally, then yes it suffices. The problem starts when somebody uses bash-specific features and passes their "shell script" to someone who tries to run it without bash.
Of course bash is the de facto standard these days, so it's unlikely to be an issue. But a similar thing could arise if you used zsh-specific features and then the script was attempted run in bash.

Of course proper #! lines avoid the problem.

It is an indication to how I pronounce 'Sudo'. Also a pun: the accented O instead of the regular O.

Isn't it easier to say "bash" than "Bourne Shell"?

I see nothing wrong with it.

bash = bash
zsh = zush
csh = seesh
tcsh = t'cush
ksh = kush
pdksh = p'd'kush
dash = run!!!