Talk:Bash (Unix shell)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Bash (Unix shell). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move page as suggested. With input from only 4 editors, evenly split between support and opposition, this was kind of a tricky call. The current title isn't terrible, though, and before moving the page, I'd like to see more input from the community. If it seems worth doing, an RfC might be appropriate, or perhaps a discussion involving an appropriate WikiProject, such as the two with banners at the top of this talk page. - GTBacchus^(talk) 14:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Bash (Unix shell) → Bash (software) – Contested move. Per WP:NCDAB:

If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. Otherwise, choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)".

(software) is both the most commonly-used disambiguator, and the simplest. "Unix shell" is overly specific. An argument was made that bug bash also falls under "software terms that use the word bash", but I believe that article is not ambiguously titled and probably doesn't need a separate article in the first place. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. There really is no such thing as the most commonly used disambiguation term for software. What is common is that the term usually helps tell what it is, e.g., C (programming language) or Cairo (operating system). After long debate, consensus on the opening words of the article is that "Bash is a Unix shell". All the rest of the Unix shells either have "shell" in the name of the article, for example, C shell, Bourne shell and Z shell, have names so unusual they can't be confused or are themselves disambiguated as Unix shells, e.g., wish (Unix shell). Perhaps because it's awkward on the tongue with the repeated "sh" sounds (or, as thumperward argues, because bash is an acronym), no one says, "Bash shell", they just say "Bash". So this is why we don't already have "shell" naturally in the title. The proposed dab, "software", tells almost nothing and doesn't even dab very well: Software developers also talk about bug bashes where the idea is to focus on fixing bugs, not adding any new features. Which software bash are we talking about? (thumperward, I can promise bug bashes are not parties; they're more like hell weeks for the developers.) Msnicki (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
- There are about 221,000 articles which use the (software) disambiguator right now. There are only two which use (Unix shell): the other is an unreferenced, orphaned stub. Your examples are exceptions to the general rule as a) there's a much stronger consensus (59,700 examples) for (programming language) than for (Unix shell) and b) there are at least two prominent pieces of software called Cairo (cairo (graphics) being the other I can name). Bug bash, an orphan with a single reference, is not a likely destination for an editor looking up the term "bash", and so isn't really relevant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Most of those 221,000 articles discoverable by Google (but certainly not in any category or list here on WP) are about truly random software products. Many are applications and others are about software widgets that defy better classification except to say it's software and if you want to know more, read the article. For example, consider Steam (software): "Steam is a digital distribution, digital rights management, multiplayer and communications platform ..."; who knows how to classify that except that it's some sort of software. It's a safe bet that a lot of those 221,000 articles would never survive an AfD and might disappear with simple PRODs. By contrast, Unix shell is a widely-understood descriptive classification with defining characteristics. The only reason there aren't thousands of articles disambiguated by "(Unix shell)" is because there are only a finite, much smaller number of such things. Msnicki (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The specific rationale behind the move request was that it follows the advice given at WP:NCDAB. That there are not many Unix shells indicates that using (Unix shell) as a disambiguator is too precise. You may disagree with choosing simple dab terms over more precise ones, but that's what the guideline says we should do. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fine. I concede that "(Software)" is far more common (and from information theory, far less informative) and would allow us to obey the guidelines according to your interpretation that a dab should be as generic as possible. Notably absent is any claim this would improve the article. I still don't think it's a good idea. Msnicki (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Support - although my default position is to oppose moves unless they "fix" a real problem. In this case, it seems the vast majority of user of bash by now are not strictly "Unix" but related environments like Linux and even Cygwin. Albeit Unix shell is the article that covers them all, so it might go down the slippery slope of moving that one too. W Nowicki (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Unix shell" isn't just the title of that other article. It has a consensus definition, "A Unix shell is a command-line interpreter or shell that provides a traditional user interface for the Unix operating system and for Unix-like systems." And it's also in the opening words of this article as well, "Bash is a Unix shell ...". The question of whether Bash is really a Unix shell has been raised earlier on this page but compared to other questions of what should go in the opening paragraphs, this is has been remarkably uncontentious. Msnicki (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose there's many software called "Bash" 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
^{[citation needed]} Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further discussion

User:Thumperward has contacted me about the above move request, asking that we revisit the question. I acknowledge that very few people contributed to the discussion, making it difficult to come down on one side or another. If a move is clearly appropriate, I'm happy to help with it, but I'd like to hear from a few more editors, to get a feel for what the consensus really is regarding this, and possibly other similar titles. Therefore I'm posting notes to a couple of places around the site and asking the question: Should this article be renamed? Please discuss here, and let's see what we think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thumperward is out of line, starting with his misrepresentation of my position to you on your talk page as his justification for reopening this discussion. He's been difficult about this from beginning (see User_talk:Thumperward#Moving Bash) and I think he needs to realize that sometimes, just because you think you're right, doesn't mean others will agree or that you will get your way. He should accept that his proposal was considered for a week, he didn't get support and it's done. Msnicki (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Had I taken part in the move request, I would have Supported per WP:NCDAB and the original nom. Disambiguators are to be as concise and general as possible. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a very hard decision given that one rarely refers to operating system components as "software". I note that the anonymous comment claiming that there is more software of the same name, while technically correct , appears to be referring to a non-notable HTML editor. If we rename the article, we will probably displace the company "Bash Software" as the top Google hit for its name. But that's not our problem. Using the name of a ubiquitous Unix tool in the name of a Windows-centric software company was a remarkably stupid decision. Hans Adler 13:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No surprise, I totally agree that people rarely refer to OS components as merely "software". I think thumperward has overstated his case. If you look at WP:NCDAB, you'll notice that one of the examples disambiguates with "set theory"; if his interpretation was correct, why didn't the example disambiguate with "mathematics"? There is no answer. It's a judgment call. I think the example supports picking a term that's actually illuminating of what the thing is, not merely the most generic and completely meaningless term possible, especially when it's not even the term most people would expect or use. Msnicki (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Nothing being proposed is "completely meaningless". Let's try to let it drop about Thumperward, and let other people weigh in for a while. Does that sound alright, Msnicki? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. There is no other notable meaning of union in mathematics, although there are two in programming. It can be found under union (computer science), which I find a bit misleading since (1) it's not so much computer science as programming, (2) unions in the set-theoretical sense also appear in computer science – both in its mathematical theory and in the union-find algorithm, and (3) there is also union (SQL).

Application of this guideline may have drifted a bit since that example was included, and anyway, the "union" disambiguation is far from optimal in its current form. Hans Adler 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that for all this rhetoric about my not being right about the guideline ("overstating my case", natch), I did post the figures above: we have 221,000 articles which use this convention right now, and while head counts during discussions are often poor indicators of consensus they're an excellent indicator when simply looking at established practice. If the example given at NCDAB is bad then let's fix NCDAB: clearly (software) is not a bad example here, as over two hundred thousand articles follow that example. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really like Bash (software) here. How about Bourne-Again shell, for consistency with the other shells? Or Bash (shell)? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

oppose rename the current name is fine as that is category that naturally comes to mind. I use it on Cygwin but till think of it as a Unix shell as it is trying to be like Unix. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobody refers to bash as the Bourne-Again Shell. It'd be like moving GNU to GNU's Not Unix: the expansion is a joke, rather than a full name in any sense. And (shell) is nowhere near as general as (software), which (once again) is what both the guideline and the existing state of articlespace supports. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Bashisms

I have heard this term used - in what I think was a mildly negative manner - to describe a feature or behaviour of Bash that is an extension of or at variance with in some circumstances either (?) the POSIX standards or other *nix sh-like command interpreters. A Wikipedia redirection bought me to Bash_(Unix_shell)#Portability but with not even a reference to this term. Further DuckDuckGo-fu (like Google-fu but DuckDuckGo don't track where you look) led me to http://mywiki.wooledge.org/Bashism?action=show&redirect=bashism which does seem a useful starting point, but it might be worthwhile to expand upon this term and that there are differences between bash and sh.

SlySven (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Born again, again

Editor Msnicki reverted my trivial 2-word change to this language twice without any meaningful explanation, and then a third time, finally with the explanation: "Unhelpful (the term may not be familiar to all readers) and this change lacks consensus," accompanied by a threat on my user talk page to have me banned from Wikipedia for two years---what's with that?

Leaving aside Msnicki's angry and abusive misconduct here, let's just consider the change on its own rights, second issue first;

It's hard to see how one can start a talk-page consensus discussion about a change if the complainer won't state the nature of her objection. The initial change was part of a general copy-edit that involved a half dozen trivial changes, and the complainer gave no indication as to which of the trivial changes was at issue.
Yes, the term may not be familiar to all readers. So, I think, one should not be making unsubstantiated assertions about its meaning here, in an unrelated tech article. (In fact, in usual American usage, the term does not have anything to do with "spiritual rebirth," whatever that means --- it's just a label for a particular brand of fundamentalist Christianity.)

The article, I think, should just acknowledge that "born again" is a common catch-phrase in American English, which is being punned upon, without making unsupported and irrelevant theological assertions about the meaning of the term. Eleuther (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that term, born again, may not be known to all readers and that it's unnecessary to force them to click a link to find out if the answer is only four words. I did not revert the rest of your changes; the rest seemed okay.

I'm sorry you took my templating you as a threat. I'm not an admin, I have no power to block anyone. Even if I were an admin, I still wouldn't be able to do anything because we're involved in the same content dispute. You can only be blocked by an uninvolved admin after a report, typically at WP:ANI or WP:AN3. It looked to me like you were about to violate WP:3RR and I didn't know if you knew the consequences. This is something you never want to do here. It results in an almost certain block, which will never disappear from your user history. I wanted you to stop before you did that to yourself. There are always other ways to work out a content dispute. It's never worth getting blocked. I would say that to anyone who I was worried wasn't aware of what could happen. Msnicki (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that the term "born again" may indeed not be known to all readers, and therefore, a misleading definition of it should not be included here, in an unrelated tech article. Eleuther (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The lede sentence in our Born again article states that "born again is a popular phrase referring to "spiritual rebirth"". If you disagree with that claim, as apparently you did in this edit, I think you should take it up on the Talk:Born again page. The lede in this article has been pretty stable for several years, so if you'd like to change it, the onus is on you to show that you have consensus support for the change. Msnicki (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I will not do anything like that. There's no point in trying to change a false phrase that is protected by such an army of officious hammer-wielders. Please consider this discussion to be closed. Eleuther (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've looked at the article you cite, I need to point out that you are lying about what it says. It qualifies the definition from the start with "In some Christian movements, particularly in Evangelicalism, to be born again is a popular phrase referring (etc.) ..." In other words, it only defines the term in a particular religious context, which is the point that I've been trying to make all along. Eleuther (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unhelpful to call someone a liar here on Wikipedia. That's a personal attack and that also can you blocked per WP:NPA. You are certainly welcome to your opinion regarding the content but if you'd like the article to reflect your opinion, you're going at it the wrong way. A better plan when you come across claims you disagree with is to present your own better sources supporting the language you prefer. Msnicki (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The source you cite already directly supports the language I prefer. I don't need to cite any others. It clearly states that the term "born again" is used by some evangelical Christians to refer to a form of "spiritual rebirth" they believe they've experienced, however, the article goes on to say, in general usage, the term does not refer to "spiritual rebirth," it's only a label (not always flattering, I may add) that refers to such believers and their groups.

Thus, it's false and misleading for you to claim (in a non-sectarian tech article) that "born again" denotes spiritual rebirth. That assertion needs to be removed, Eleuther (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, consider this, please, Eleuther. That sentence is supported by a reliable source stating the name is a pun on the phrase, "born again". What does that term mean and what was the significance of that choice? Was it just two random words that sounded good or was there a meaning and a connection to what they were building? The explanation of the term, that it denotes spiritual rebirth, is helpful in understanding there was a connection. Stallman was inspired to create a new philosophical and economic model for free software, completely recreating a free and open source version of Unix. We often refer to creative works as the result of inspiration, a word with origins in "divine guidance" in Middle English. So the pun is not accidental. They really were attempting a "spiritual rebirth" of the Bourne shell. Does that help? Msnicki (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The ole imagination seems to be running in full gear here. The term "born again" is a common label or catch phrase in English. So the alternatives are not just (a) the random words sounded good together, or (b) Stallman (or whoever chose the name; the sources I've seen don't clarify that) was intentionally referring to form of "spiritual rebirth" of computer software. There is a much more plausible third alternative: (c) the pun simply refers to the common catch phrase. And anyway, even if Stallman (or whoever) was punning on the idea of spiritual rebirth, his meaning would not be that same as the "born again" that's used by believers, which I understand to be a form of re-baptism and re-connection to Jesus. This is not at all the same thing as deploring proprietary software licenses.

If you have sources that support your fantastic interpretation, please deploy them. But really, I think you need to start finding a way to back away from your fanatic opposition to this simple and obvious two-word edit. Eleuther (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, again, you're welcome to your opinion but to have it reflected in the article, you're going to need to show that there's consensus support for your change. So far, nothing you've said has changed my mind and no one else has stepped in to support you either. That's what you need to fix. You need to get people on your side. Otherwise, it's not happening no matter how convinced you are that you're right.

We all have to deal with this on Wikipedia. Try to assume good faith and avoid thinking of this as winning or losing. Sometimes, you'll have a dissenting minority opinion; you're still entitled to your opinion, just not entitled to the outcome you'd like given the way we decide things based on WP:CONSENSUS. We all have to learn to be okay with that.

For more on how to deal with a content dispute like this one, consider the advice at WP:DISPUTE. One option available to you is a Request for Comment, where you could propose the specific change you'd like here on this talk page in a more formal way and ask for a WP:!VOTE. Msnicki (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Phew. May I assume that was the firing of yet another attack template, i.e., that you didn't write all that officious stuff yourself? Otherwise, you're trying way too hard. Eleuther (talk) 10:53, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

As requested above, I've added two book sources explaining the significance of the "born again" pun. Both are explaining the phrase in other languages to audiences who may not realize it has special meaning in English. One of the sources is Stallman himself explaining it in Italian. Msnicki (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Born again, and again and again

User:Eleuther appears to object to any mention of what the term born again means, except to describe it as a "common" or "sarcastic" term. When Eleuther questioned it last May in the section immediately above this one, I reported adding two sources, including one from Stallman himself explaining the connection to the Christian expression "born again". At that point, the discussion seemed to end.

Eleuther has recently deleted the explanation and the two sources that supported it, in a series of edits including possibly editing while logged out, accusing me of imposing my religious beliefs, (how does he even know what they are?) and then edit warring even after a warning requesting that we take it to this talk page, to delete the explanation, then the sources, claiming they were "bogus" and no longer "relevant" once he'd removed the claim they supported.

I think the connection to the use by Evangelical Christians is important, but more important, so does no less an expert than Stallman himself Through his FSF and his GNU projects, and through the creation of bash, Stallman hoped that he would change the way software was created and shared and with it, a completely free and open source software system that had everything Unix had. He absolutely needed a shell, so this was one of the few pieces he paid to have developed. So the name and the reference were significant to him, an allusion to his vision for a "spiritual rebirth" of software under his open source model and philosophy. Anyone is free to agree or disagree with me on exactly Stallman meant, but the simple fact is, he did say, in one of the deleted sources, that he was referring to the term as used by Evangelical Christians, which is all the article reported.

May I invite some other opinions, please? I think we should figure things out by discussion and consensus. I don't like edit warring at all. Msnicki (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

That anonymous edit was not by me. As you noted just above, I had pretty much forgotten the issue. But then that anonymous person made an obvious good edit that I agree with, and you slammed him/her with a revert. So I decided to weigh in on the issue again. Eleuther (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You say that I seem to "object to any mention of what the term means," but that is exactly the issue --- the term doesn't have a single meaning. It means different things to different people in different contexts and sects, an issue that is properly discussed in the term's own article. It's seriously out of place to pick a particular sectarian meaning, and insert it here as the meaning, in the lead (no less) of an article on an unrelated, non-religious subject.

You wonder how I can know your religious beliefs --- well, I don't, except for the evident fact that they include a particular meaning of the term "born again," which you believe should be accepted uncritically in non-religious contexts like this article.

May I say further that your repeated invocation of "Stallman himself" borders on the bizarre. You seem to be saying that Stallman (a self-described "atheist of Jewish ancestry") is secretly pursuing a Christian evangelical agenda, as shown cryptically by the existence of a pun in the name of a single piece of free software. Really? I suggest you take this idea to the articles on Stallman himself, or on the GNU project, and see how far it flies. If it flies there, then it's okay by me here, otherwise it seems to be a fairly extreme stretch.

I too wish that other editors would weigh in on this issue, but they didn't last time and probably won't now, so we may just need to rely on logic and reason for now. Eleuther (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It's a very simple question, and religious doctrine or personal belief has nothing to do with it. Either you have a source making that explicit connection or you do not; if you do not, then it's WP:OR. From what I'm seeing, you do not; the only statement your sources support is that "Bourne again shell" is a word play, or a pun (and not even a sarcastic pun), on "Bourne shell" and "born again" - an expression with roots in Christian theology that, bar the pun, means nothing whatsoever in this context. You can wikilink to "born again" ("a nod to the Bourne shell and the phrase 'born again'"), but that's it. François Robere (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: Could you kindly take another look, please? There were two sources that Eleuther removed stating the connection between the term as used by Evangelical Christians and as a name for this shell.^[1]^[2]

I saw both of them in one of the older revisions. They look like explanations of American vernacular to foreigners, not statements of intent by Stallman. François Robere (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

But isn't that the point, to explain that this was the connection for those who may not already know it? Stallman is confirming that he chose the phrase because there's a connection he had in mind between the term as used by Evangelican Christians and the name he chose for his shell. He's not describing "born again" as a "common" phrase randomly chosen because it sounded nice, he's saying it's a specific phrase with a specific meaning, which is all the article reported. Again, I'm baffled why you find this source insufficient simply because it explains the matter to non-English speakers. Msnicki (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

But there lies a slight, and important difference: their explanation of the phrase isn't necessarily Stallman's explanation of the phrase. From what I can see he simply used an idiom - a phrase which by popular use came to have a common meaning which is related to, but not the same as the original. For example, if instead of "born again" he had used the idiom "show the ropes" and called the program STRSH ("Starsh") - suggesting that it's a friendly and easy to learn program - does that mean that he had in mind 18th century rigging practices, and that we should we mention those in this context? Probably not - he probably just used an well-known idiom, with no intention of suggesting anything beyond what it's commonly understood to suggest. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

But the point is, it wasn't called something random like "show the ropes". Its actual name is Bourne Again Shell and it's meaningful in its own right: Bash was intended as a completely free and open source version of the Bourne Shell owned by AT&T. This was a recreation, a re-incarnation, if you will, of that original Bourne shell and that's why the word play was significant and widely understood. Msnicki (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Born again references

[1]
Rohaut, Sébastien (April 2015). LINUX: Preparación para la certificación LPIC-1 : Exámenes LPI 101 y LPI 102. Editions ENI. p. 170. ISBN 978-2-7460-9513-7. Retrieved May 27, 2017. El bash es un derivado de Bourne Shell. Bourne es el nombre del principal programm programador de este shell. La expresión "Bourne Again" es un guiño a los origenes del bash (Bourne) y un juengo de palabras en "I born again", lo qui significa "he nacido otra vez" o "reencarnado". [Bash is a derivative of Bourne Shell. Bourne is the name of the main programmer for this shell. The expression "Bourne Again" is a nod to the origins of bash (Bourne) and a pun on "born again", which means "I was born again" or "reincarnated".]
[2]
Stallman, Richard (1999). Il progetto GNU. Open Sources. Voci dalla rivoluzione Open Source. Apogee Publisher. p. 66. Retrieved May 27, 2017. "Bourne Again Shell" è un gioco di parole sul nome "Bourne Shell", che era la normale shell di Unix. NdT: "Bourne again" richiama l'expressione cristiana "born again", "rinato" (in Cristo). ["Bourne Again Shell" is a pun on the name "Bourne Shell", which was the normal Unix shell. NdT: "Bourne again" refers to the Christian expression "born again", "reborn" (in Christ).)]

Hi, Msnicki. After more research, which I probably should have done earlier, I can clarify the nature of your Italian language source a bit better here. For the record, it's from a translation into Italian of a book published by O'Reilly in 1999, titled Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. This book is a collection of papers, the first of which is Stallman's well-known work The GNU Project, which he wrote specifically for the book, and which is widely available (see for Stallman's online version). You're citing a footnote in this paper. The first sentence is Stallman's footnote. The second sentence was added by the translators (as clearly indicated by NdT: nota del traduttore). The first sentence, as in the English language original, only uses the phrase "Bourne again," leaving its interpretation to the reader's imagination. The term "born again" only occurs in the second sentence.

In other words, Stallman does not use the term "born again" himself at all here, much less does he ascribe a meaning to it. The term was only added by the translators. Thus your claim (), when you added the citation, that the "source is Stallman himself explaining it in Italian," appears to be false, and your claim, at the beginning of this talk section, that the source is "one from Stallman himself explaining the connection to the Christian expression "born again"," is also plainly false. Eleuther (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

He is still the author and there's no reason to believe the translator was some sort of rogue agent, writing stuff Stallman wouldn't agree with. It's likely Stallman was asked to approve the translation. But even if Stallman was unaware of the added words, it's still a reliable, authoritative source from a reputable publisher. Msnicki (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, the publisher is reputable, but all the rest of that is pure speculation. You don't cite Stallman's original paper, because it doesn't contain the word you want (born). Instead, you cite an Italian translation, where the word appears in a translator's note, which you then attribute magically to Stallman. This seems to verge on editorial misconduct. Eleuther (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Kindly WP:AGF, at least in what you write. I keep what I think of you to myself; you can do the same for me. There is also a second source explaining the connection to reincarnation, which I could also accept, as a better elaboration than "common". Are you arguing that you do not think there was a connection between the formal name, Bourne Again Shell, what it did, recreating the Bourne shell from scratch, and the notion of reincarnation captured in "born again" as the term is commonly understood? Stallman wasn't paying homage to Evangelicals; he was taking their term, the same way he was taking AT&T's definition of Bourne shell, which he also put in the name, to tell people instantly what this product was and what it did. I'm pretty sure he thought this was very clever (I do, too) and it had nothing to do with religion, just like it has nothing to do with religion for me. (I'm not religious, either.) Msnicki (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course I think there's no such connection, in any meaningful sense. It's the simplest and obvious and most logical thing to think. Suppose the author of the encumbered shell had been named Smith, instead of Bourne. Stallman would still have needed to commission a replacement, but it would have been named something else, say smash. So now take Stallman's paper The GNU Project, on the project's history: change bash to smash everywhere, and change the footnote in question to say, "Smash stands for Smith alternative shell." The result: same GNU project, same paper, but no religious hook to hang elaborate fantasies on, about reincarnation and rebirth, etc. Of course, an anarchist could now come around and claim on the basis of the new name that GNU is all about smashing the system. That would be an equally weird fantasy. Eleuther (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Wikipedia is not WP:TRUTH and consensus is not WP:UNANIMOUS. I concede it's unlikely you will change your opinion, so with support from the third opinion, you appear to have what little there is of a consensus for now. I'm surprised and disappointed there was so little discussion, and with your befuddling argument that it might have called it something else, which I'd have thought should have been my argument, that he didn't call it something else, he called it the Bourne Again Shell for a reason, that it was a clever wordplay on the notion of an existing AT&T proprietary shell being reincarnated in open source. This was considered obvious at the time. Msnicki (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be befuddled by simple logic. I'm not sure how to answer further, so I will bow out for now. Eleuther (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Logo official or FAN ART?

If the latter, why does Wikipedia have it? Is wikipedia a platform for assign logos to random things? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.52.188 (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The image caption describes it as the "Official GNU Bash logo." If that's not good enough for you, a simple Google search on "official bash logo" turns up the site , which describes the creation of the logo in 2015. The search also turns up links to the logo in the bash project's official repository. Eleuther (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I call BS. Where does that page say GNU/Free Software Foundation authorized it or at least the authors of Bash: Brian Fox and Chet Ramey? Just because a website advertises itself as something, that does not mean that's legit. The official page of Bash is at . I don't see a friggin' logo there. That site you linked is just trying to use the logo to promote themselves (Prospect One). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.52.188 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A bit crabby this mornin', are we? Thanks for mentioning Chet Ramey, the current maintainer of bash. On the official bash page, which you linked to, the second paragraph says, "The maintainer also has a bash page." If you follow that link to Chet Ramey's bash page, there you will see the logo. So he, at least, seems to think the logo has some official status. You could also have followed the link "30,000 people voted for the best iteration" (on the bashlogo.com page that I mentioned earlier). This leads to an article on opensource.com, about the project to create the logo, and Ramey's role in it, and his sanctioning of it. Please see the github page official-bash-logo for more information if you need it. This all seems to me like open source working the way it should, rather than (as you seem to assume) everyone involved acting unethically and in bad faith. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for chiming in but that logo is not official. The official GNU Bash page does NOT display the logo. Therefore, it's fan art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.25.44 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Chet Ramey is not merely a "fan". He's the maintainer of Bash. The source page on github declares that this is the "Official GNU Bash Logo", that the client is Chet Ramey and that it is copyright 2016 by the Free Software Foundation. I find no reason to doubt that it is exactly what it says it is. I'm not persuaded that it matters whether FSF includes this logo at . 2016 is recent history for bash and it seems likely the gnu page hasn't been updated. To question the authenticity of this as the official Bash logo, I think you need way better evidence. Msnicki (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Possible original research

macOS is Unix, and bash is not Unix-like

I am not a Wikipedia writer, I just want to say that I really do not like the following sentence since it might be misleading: "While bash is considered Unix-like,[14] it's also available on macOS, Windows, BeOS,[15][16] and Haiku.[17]".

The cited FAQ in [14] states that "Bash is a Unix command interpreter", not something like "Unix-like". Also, how should only a terminal resemble a whole UNIX OS?

Also, macOS is the only real Unix (that is also certified to be one), so why should it be unusual for bash running on macOS?

I think I would be more pleased with something like: "While bash was developed with UNIX and UNIX-like operation systems in mind like GNU/Linux or macOS, it is also available on Windows, BeOS, and Haiku." 176.3.11.152 (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I am glad that there is still someone who tries to explain things to wikipedia that obviously only very few of the wikipedia upper class can or want to understand. Could this have something to do with who donates a lot of money to wikipedia? 91.248.156.3 (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, that makes a bucketful of unuseful & biased assumptions. Perhaps the editor 91.248.156.3 can identify who this wikipedia upper class is. Does it include Koavf who has worked as a pizza delivery guy, a bookstore clerk, a computer lab assistant, and a research assistant? I, myself, who am among the top 1100 editors by edits, have recently retired & get a small pension & Social security. I think that you would be hard pressed to find anyone who is supported financially to do this volunteer work. I suggest that 91.248.156.3 read the policy on original research to know the difference between making stuff up & backing up what one has to write with verification from reliable sources. Perhaps it would be better if the editor at 91.248.156.3 actually became a contributor & learned what it takes to build an encyclopedia rather than taking potshots. Peaceray (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Done I altered the language slightly, so it now reads While bash was developed for UNIX and UNIX-like operation systems such as GNU/Linux, it's also available on Windows, BeOS, and Haiku. Peaceray (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 176.3.11.152 here. I want to thank you for reading and valuing my thoughts.

I don't want to say much about 91.248.156.3 as this is the wrong place, I just want to say thank you for your work, you do a great job that many don't appreciate. 176.6.49.66 (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Single maintainer for over 30 years

CC @Blush30720: @Neko-chan:
I think it's worth to mention the fact that only one person maintained bash for over 30 years (as of 2025). All along. ~~Not breaking compatibility even once.~~ Just like in that Xkcd 2347 meme. We have at least two sources on that. Any objections? AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 19:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov I'm not sure why I'm tapped in on this, but if you have good sources, go for it ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 01:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

"Not breaking compatibility even once" is a demonstrated falsehood. I've used Bash as my primary shell and have on many occasions had to make changes to my scripts to accommodate changes to Bash; often this only required minor tweaks, but at least twice it has required significant reworking. For example, non-local flow control using break and continue was broken without warning in Bash 4.3. Although the previous behaviour can be reinstated using shopt -s compat42, that disables all subsequent improvements as well, so numerous scripts required significant re-working to get around the loss of this functionality.

There is even a breaking change expected in the upcoming 5.3 release, and the maintainer is aware of this: it introduces a mandatory warning for usage of `printf` that has hitherto worked silently, with no option to suppress this warning. This spurious output will cause breakage in a small proportion of CI/CD chains and false alarms in some system monitoring tools. Yet the maintainer asserts that it won´t cause enough damage to existing systems to justify any ameliorative adjustment; I'm a "lone wolf" and should be ignored.

I'm way beyond disappointed. Martin Kealey (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching and pointing that out. I was totally wrong on that. Turns out there is a whole range of options to invoke compatibilty modes... Including --posix. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Martin, Those are some useful and, as far as I know, accurate points. However, please direct any comments about the bash-bug channel back into that channel. I appreciate you, Wiley Blush30720 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Bash is a sizeable program. Since so much cross-compatibility and ease-of-use has been written into it across the years, there are some instances that effectively (and quite easily) can be read as new commits which break past functionality, even when such a break had been completely unintentional. Part of the issue is that sometimes people use bash in any old way that just seems to do what they think it does, whether or not they're using proper syntax, and whether or not the code actually does what they expect it to do. As a result, people can end up relying on some functionality originally produced as a side-effect of some other proper syntax, or even as a side-effect of some as-yet-discovered-and-resolved bug. Thus, people could be using some super-wierd syntax, and when the bug gets fixed, the side-effect of the bug disappears, and people assume some regression's occurred, when in reality, their super-weird syntax, which was never supported in the first place, has stopped working the way they expect, and by virtue of the program functioning with fewer errors than it had prior. But really, and in my opinion, the difficulty with such a claim of, "not even once," would be the burden of having to prove that ("not even once" had indeed occurred) , which would mean proving a negative claim, which would require searching through all of the commits to positively identify the absence of any breaks in compatibility: surely a tedious and onerous effort. Blush30720 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)