Re: Ben pourquoi utiliser bash, aussi... et pas csh, zsh, ksh, kcsh, pdksh, kornshell, blablash, ?

Oui, le "Ba" devant "sh" devait être plus qu'un détail. Rendant indispensable la bonne compréhension des instruction en anglais, pour l'usage d'un pilote en français, mais pas incompréhensibles les instructions à l'interpréteur 'sh' n'étant pas prévenu.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5725296/difference-between-sh-and-bash
"
For a long time, /bin/sh used to point to /bin/bash on most GNU/Linux systems. As a result, it had almost become safe to ignore the difference between the two. But that started to change recently.

Some popular examples of systems where /bin/sh does not point to /bin/bash (and on some of which /bin/bash may not even exist) are:

Modern Debian and Ubuntu systems, which symlink sh to dash by default;
Busybox, which is usually run during the Linux system boot time as part of initramfs. It uses the ash shell implementation.
BSDs, and in general any non-Linux systems. OpenBSD uses pdksh, a descendant of the Korn shell. FreeBSD's sh is a descendant of the original UNIX Bourne shell. Solaris has its own sh which for a long time was not POSIX-compliant; a free implementation is available from the Heirloom project.

"

http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/145522/what-does-it-mean-to-be-sh-compatible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_shell#Shell_categories