Timeline for About executing shell script
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2015 at 11:08 | vote | accept | DBS | ||
| Apr 7, 2015 at 3:01 | comment | added | Janis | @Gordon; the problem with the . in PATH was specifically considered bad if you have the . at the beginning of the PATH sequence. If you have the . at the end of PATH the system commands (like your ls sample) will always be found (and executed) before the executables in . (the current directory). | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 1:27 | comment | added | Gordon Davisson | Note that back when Kernighan&Pike was written, it was common to have the current directory (".") in the PATH (meaning that foo.sh would work without the ./). This was a found to be a security problem (someone could leave e.g. a malicious script named "ls" in their directory, then trick other people into running it), so it's no longer common (or recommended) practice. | |
| Apr 7, 2015 at 0:01 | history | edited | John1024 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 114 characters in body |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 23:10 | history | edited | John1024 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 48 characters in body |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 22:52 | history | edited | John1024 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 319 characters in body |
| Apr 6, 2015 at 22:39 | history | answered | John1024 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |