I have a question related to a discussion with a software vendor. During an application test process of program that uses a root-like account on RHEL 5.3, we were asked to link /bin/sh to /usr/bin/sh. The reason given was that the vendor stated that /usr/bin/sh is the standard on most UNIX flavors and that is what they code to. The 'sh' file does not natively exist in /usr/bin/.

I checked a couple of other distros that I have and sh does not appear to be found in /usr/bin/ on them.

The vendor has requested that we create a symbolic link on every client server for the app, rather than modify their code to the Linux standard.

Has anyone else run into a similar scenario?

Does anyone know if there was a reason Linux did not follow the UNIX standard in this case?

If so, did you follow the request or push back?

It just seems odd that the onus would be placed on the customer to link sh files rather than simply code to Linux platform knowing that it's an issue.

TIA.

The good thing about standards is you get to pick which one you want to use. And of course Linux ain't Unix.
Other than that, have a look at fhs - best attempt at a standard standard yet.

I wouldn't have thought adding links to bypass vendor inadequacies at all unusual.

As linux isn't derived from unix, but from minix...
Anyway, linux does it differently as it is a different operating system, although there are many similarities.

To get to the point, I have experienced this as well. The vendor didn't want to adjust in their code. So we created the links. After some time the vendor did recode their software as they got many complaints. Guess, we were one of their first customers installing their app on linux...