Today we're going to look at four different shells (all tests were run on a Solaris 8 box and an old RedHat Linux 9 server) and some very basic I/O redirection (which can come in handy if you're ever stuck trying to read and write files in a blind shell), to show you how differently, and commonly, they all handle the same information. The only reason I find this sort of stuff remarkable is that it's so common, sometimes its hard to wrap my head around the fact that any distinctions exists (Okay, they're not HUGE, but the differences, where there are any, are enough to make you wonder ;) For instance, in our two experiments, we're only going to find one difference each. But, since the material we're working with is so basic (not meaning "simple"), it's a bit disconcerting (...oh, the drama ;)
First of all, we'll narrow down our list of shells and consider sh and ksh to be the same, since all of my testing, with regards to these two shells, yielded exactly the same results. Note that, for all of our tests, we only tried to create two conditions in a variety of ways; the first was to create an empty file, and the second was to redirect standard error (STDERR) to a file. See what I mean? This is very familiar ground for almost all Unix or Linux admins.
Now let's take a look at a how sh/ksh, bash and zsh are the same, when it comes to basic I/O redirection.
First test: Create an empty file. The following methods worked in all 4 shells (producing the expected output from the file and "wc -l" commands of "empty file" and 0, respectively):
host # : > FILE
This creates an empty file by using the colon (:) placeholder (which, technically, is a simple notation for "true") as output to be redirected into the blank FILE
host # /bin/true >FILE
Pretty much the same as the previous example, except we're running /bin/true explicitly.
host # /bin/false >FILE
Again, the same as the previous example, except we're using /bin/false for a goof. It's another program that doesn't produce output and is mainly used to generate a desired return status.
host # cat /dev/null >FILE
Just catting nothing to the FILE, and it ends up empty, as expected.
host # <>FILE
and this works as well (specifying empty redirection of STDIN and STDOUT) on all 4 shells.
host # echo <> FILE
While this, finally, spit a line of output to the screen, it still produced an empty file in all 4 shells, even with extra commands to echo, since they all spill out to the screen instead of going into the file. Kind of a waste of resources, but interesting somewhat ;)
host # echo how are ya <> FILE
how are ya
Now's here's the only basic thing I could find where they differed, in this respect:
host # >FILE
This produces an empty file on Solaris sh, ksh and bash (generally, it's shorthand for "cat /dev/null >FILE"), but results in a perpetual hang with zsh (zsh will not infer /dev/null (or true) from a lack of argument preceding the > redirection symbol).
Second test: Redirecting STDERR to a file. The similarities.
host # truss echo hi >FILE
This produces a non-empty file (with the word "hi" in it) in all 4 shells, since truss sends its output to STDERR and we're only redirecting STDOUT. This doesn't really prove any part of the experiment, but I wanted to put it out as a baseline, so we know that the truss output is going where we expect it to before we start goofing around :)
host # truss echo hi >FILE 2>&1
This, tying STDOUT and STDERR together to put all output into the file, works on all 4 shells as well :)
But, the following command only "really" works as expected in bash, and produces remarkably different results for the other shells:
host # truss echo hi &>FILE
In bash, the &> notation is shorthand for ">FILE 2>&1" - but this doesn't work for our other shells. In Solaris sh and ksh, the command spits output to the screen, since the & activates the shells' backgrounding feature, the job completes and the output file is completely empty. On zsh, "hi" gets spit to the output terminal and only STDERR goes into the output file (???)
Remember, these have just been really basic examples. Thinking about this sort of stuff makes you realize how truly "different" different shells are. Of course, among these very basic examples, we could only find two major
differences, but that's still a good number considering how rudimentary the shell functions are. In other words, these are I/O redirection issues which you can't change, except by script-wrapping (which probably isn't worth it, since, for each difference we found at least 2 similarities between the 4 shells and both experiments only tested one property).
If you're not sleeping yet, I'll assume this article was, at least somewhat, entertaining and/or helpful ;)
Have a Happy 4th of July!
Friday, July 4, 2008