Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mprvaxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!mprvaxa!tbray
From: tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP (Tim Bray)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Please do NOT use "/bin/test" as a command name
Message-ID: <674@mprvaxa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Dec-85 19:53:13 EST
Article-I.D.: mprvaxa.674
Posted: Thu Dec 12 19:53:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 22:30:31 EST
References: <313@bdaemon.UUCP> <13400016@mirror.UUCP> <1016@sdcsla.UUCP> <1019@utcs.uucp> <1747@dciem.UUCP>
Reply-To: tbray@mprvaxa.UUCP (Tim Bray)
Organization: Microtel Pacific Research, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Lines: 25
Summary: 

I am NOT a unix-wizard.  But it seems elementary to me that all shell scripts
should be as follows:

#!/bin/sh
PATH=/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/ucb   # 'n maybe some more
if test bletch ....
mv foo
rm bar
etc..

That way you can't get bitten by (maybe intentional) name duplication, you
will preserve the flexibility of path usage, and everything is hunky dory.
This assumes that you can trust the contents of /bin:/usr/bin:/usr/ucb.
If you want to use nonstandard commands as a privileged person, you should
#$&*)$ well have them in a protected place - we use /opr.

We had a secretary who created a little script called 'test' (dunno why) that 
printed out some guy's performance appraisal on her screen, and it turns
out there were a FEW system scripts promiscuously using 'test' without
protecting their paths - she was pretty upset for a while.