2
Comments
  • 2
    No foreskin?
  • 9
    they are all images.

    Prove me wrong
  • 10
    They were all bourne again.
  • 1
    @phorkyas is the middle one not zsh? 🤔
  • 1
  • 4
    @FelisPhasma if the script content is the target it's wrong again... /bin/sh != bash
  • 2
    @FelisPhasma It's made up, but should be original Bourne shell=sh, not the resurrected one (bash = Bourne again shell, ya know)
  • 5
    They're all useless?
  • 4
    @Root HOW DARE YOU! Blasphemy!

    Calling Jason Bourne useless...for shame...

    He's good at...killing...and stuff. Plenty useful.
  • 2
    @Mokalottay I think I'd rather call Wick 💁🏻‍♂️
  • 1
    @hjk101 if you look at the image the shebang is for bash
  • 0
    @hjk101 @river226 Alas, the ambiguity of natural languages. What I actually meant was: "They were going to be Bourne again." (Hence pixelated sh over bash)
  • 0
    @Mokalottay same goes for sh/bash, they are too powerful, so that people implement build systems for Mac or installer for 35 distributions in it, that are just a pita to maintain.
  • 1
    @M1sf3t Good call. Carry on @Root.
  • 1
    @river226 no if you look at the shebang you see it is really not. It's sh that means the script must be bourne sh compatible not bourne again aka bash. Always use #!/usr/bin/env bash
  • 0
    @hjk101 not sure how many people use borne shell, but I suppose you are technically correct
  • 1
    @river226 it's not so much what people want to use but more what the OS provides. Sometimes sh is a very light shell to speed up the boot process (older Debian distros had that for example) or bussybox is used like in Alpine Linux (lots of buildin commands have options missing).

    It's something I have had issues with before and can be frustrating to debug
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment