Do shells have any actual advantages or disadvantages? They can all run any binary, they all support pipes and
> (output to file). Why would one choose
ksh, etc? Why does any shell other than
sh exist in the first place?
closed as not constructive by jasonwryan, Shadur, uther, rahmu, warl0ck Feb 3 '13 at 8:07
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Bash includes all the features of sh and is intended to provide backward compatibility for sh scripts, which is why
So in terms of functionality, bash is superior to sh; it does everything sh does and a whole lot more. Note that finding a system which uses the original sh might not be so easy.
However, bash is has a strong copyleft open source license (GPL 3+), meaning it has some socio-political/pragmatic/logistic advantages or disadvantages, depending upon the context of use.
Apparently there is a Hollywood blockbuster action trilogy about the whole thing, starring Matt Daemon ;)
In other words, in that context "sh" does not refer to a particular shell but a standard to which a particular shell conforms.
Mostly common differences you may find in Difference between ksh,bash and different shells post on unix.com My opinion that it is like a choice different distros. Everyone chooses what he likes.