Re: [patch] to libstdc++-v3: fix for the Bourne shell

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

>
> Wrong. Bourne is the shell's author's last name. The Bourne shell is the one
> that Steve Bourne wrote. Period. No other shell can be called the Bourne shell.
> Tne Bourne shell appears in the UNIX V7 distribution, it is the standard V7
> UNIX shell.

Err, what if Bob Bourne, or Fred Bourne, wrote a shell.
Then can they call it the Bourne shell?
Or is it only the one Steve Bourne wrote.

Interestingly, i don't know where you come up with the idea that the
Bourne shell is the one Steve Bourne wrote, as opposed to Bob Bourne, or Fred
Bourne (if they indeed wrote one).

His shell tutorial is called "An Introduction to the UNIX Shell", not "An
Introduction to the Bourne Shell".
Bourne appears nowhere in it except as the name of the author (S. R.
Bourne).
It seems to only be *other* things that refer to it as the Bourne shell.
So can I call any shell by anyone named S. R. Bourne, a Bourne shell?
I'm just curious as to what authority is telling you (or giving you, if
you aren't pulling it from a specific source) that this is the one, and
only, Bourne shell.

>
> Also UNIX is one specific system. It is the system described in Dennis M.
> Ritchie and Ken Thompson's article "The UNIX Time-Sharing System" in the July
> 1974 issue of Communications of the ACM.
>
> > the incarnation of Unix you are using (4.2 or 4.3 BSD, I forget
> > which).
>
> I use 4.3BSD. Specifically, the current development version of
> 4.3BSD-Quasijarus, last change checked in [looking in the SCCS log] on 01/01/07
> 17:28:38 PST. 4.3BSD is a version of UNIX, not Unix. UNIX is case-sensitive.
>
You forgot that "UNIX is a registered trademark AT&T Bell Laboratories in
the USA and other countries"


--Dan