bash VS linux

> Next you'll be telling me that I shouldn't use Bash because Bash 5.0 came out in 2018 and only got two minor point releases over the next 5 years. But that sounds dumb, huh?

What's dumb is not being able to tell the difference. It's not about the numbers.

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/ shows there are constant updates. Things are being worked on. Your example proves my whole point. There are updates every year for many years.

Express? Not so. There are many gaps in its history. And for a tool like Express that has way more surface area it is in need of a lot more testing and updating e.g. if NodeJs changes something it breaks.

Does Bash need to make sure it works with HTTP3, Brotli or many other things that came out? No.

> Because for the most part - it doesn't need them.

Right, let's go back to the Stone Age. You don't need clothes either - just a leaf. You're just so dismissive on innovation then why bother? You don't even need NodeJs. Back to assembly and punch cards...

> Is an ignorant take.

Yes, yours. As shown above by your example.

> People promote it because it's a good tool.

And how do you know that? Where are the stats? Or people just google for NodeJs server, see the top response being Express and just do that. The cycle then repeats. Have people promoting it actually benchmarked, compared and investigated all the tools before making this informed decision? I'm sure you've heard from each and everyone 1 of them to know the answer eh.

If anyone else is wondering (but it's probably just me), "compatibility level 50" doesn't mean that Bash has a complicated feature-detection algorithm that places compatibility on a scale from 0 to 100%. "Level 50" just means compatibility with bash 5.0.

The bash shell also has code in it to check for this same magic number. This is because bash is also available on systems where the kernel doesn't do #! processing, but people would still want their scripts to behave in a predictable manner. You can see this in execute_cmd.c from the current bash source code.

Well, have you looked at the bash source? The error message is around line 4481 in this file: https://github.com/bminor/bash/blob/master/jobs.c

Was it some ancient bug? I cant seem to find a mention of it in bash changelog

Here is Bash's source code.

After I made the comment I actually decided to look up BASHs source code and here appears to be the part that handles errors if the filename is to be believed https://github.com/bminor/bash/blob/master/error.c

I present you a middle case: here's the source code for Gnu bash's cp command.

FFS predates FreeBSD and is in some capacity supported by all 3 major BSDs. I'm fairly confident that Linux actually supports it through the ufs driver ( https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/fs/ufs ); whether the use of different names in different places makes it better or worse is an exercise for the reader.

These are a bit easier to see what's going on:

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e...

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/d5cf50dafc9dd5faa1e61...

Unfortunately Github doesn't have a way to render symbols for whitespace, but you can tell by selecting the spaces that the previous version had leading tabs. Linus changed it so that the tokens `default` and the number e.g. `12` are also separated by a tab. This is tricky, because the token "default" is seven characters, it will always give this added tab a width of 1 char which makes it always layout the same as if it were a space no matter if you use tab widths of 1, 2, 4, or 8.

There was also a Gentoo effort to run atop FreeBSD[0]. The challenge of course is that afaik none of the BSD kernel ABIs are considered stable. The stable interface is the BSD libc. That said, with binfmt_misc, I don't see a reason you couldn't just run (at least some) FreeBSD binaries on Linux with a thin syscall translation layer (rather something like qemu-system) and then your layer hooked via binfmt_misc. I'm not aware of anyone who has done this for FreeBSD, but prior efforts existed as alternate binfmts for SysVr4/5 ELF binaries[2]. Either way would take some elbow grease, but you *might* even be able just reuse binfmt_elf and just have a new interpreter for FreeBSD elf.

[0] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD

[1] https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/binfmt-misc.html

[2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/binfmt_elf....

> The original less-than check was deemed incorrect

It was only deemed incorrect because of an information leak. Not because it's a valid use-case for user space to copy smaller portions of *hwrpb into user space. https://github.com/torvalds/linux/commit/21c5977a836e399fc71...

Correct. And the combined work needs to carry the MIT license text and copyright attributions for the MIT software authors. With binary distribution it must also be overt, not hidden in some source code drop, but directly accompanying the binary.

Many people who talk about relicensing never credit the MIT developers or distribute the MIT license text. "Because it's GPL now."

I don't think that you believe that, but many developers do.

Some don't see the need for source code scans for Open Source compliance, because the license.txt says GPL, so it's GPL. Prime example is the Linux kernel. There is code under different licenses in there, but people don't even read https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/COPYING till the end ("In addition, other licenses may also apply.") and conclude it's simply GPL 2 and nothing else.

Also be aware that sublicensing is not the same as relicensing.

> Does he have something against it?

He notoriously hates GNU Emacs, yes.

https://marc.info/?m=122955159617722

https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/...