Talk:Bash (Unix shell)

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) 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; 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)
 * 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.)


 * 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)


 * 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.


 * 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)


 * 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
This section appears to be almost completely original research. Its claims are not expressed anywhere in the sources cited, rather, the citations all link to basic information about Bash or dictionary definitions of respective words.

As an example, the section states that "With that pun, it would seem, is added an allusion: possibly to the Hindu or Buddhist idea of reincarnation; possibly to the Christian idiom known as 'being born again;' or quite possibly just to the more abstract idea of renewal." There is no source that makes that claim, and I am left to assume that this is an editor's own interpretation. As such, I am marking it as original research. Abitowlish (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)