[YawningAngel]

'System bash' isn't a universal or clear concept. For example, if you're using Modern OS X, you likely have bash via brew or some other userspace package manager but no system bash. Presumably you (or at least, most people) would still like your scripts to run in this case.

[jbrnh]

But if I write the script for a bunch of RHEL servers then OS X and brew are irrelevant, and the full path is better (IMHO). It's the 'always use env..' I object to.

[moviuro]

It's RHEL... today. `/usr/bin/env` is a POSIX standard. Maybe one day, RHEL will put bash in /usr/local/bin. Or maybe you'll switch to FreeBSD one day, and suddenly everything goes boom.

[jbrnh]

env and sh are both POSIX but AFAIK the path is not specified for either of them. If POSIX has an opinion on how you should start a script I would be happy for a link?

Bash in RHEL is in /usr/bin and /bin as /bin in symlinked to /usr/bin. I think it is equally unlikely that RHEL (Debian, SLES..) will will move either /bin/bash or /usr/bin/env as it would break a million scripts out there.

If we should migrate to FreeBSD while, for some reason, reusing linux oriented bash scripts, changing the path to /usr/local/bin/ would be the least of my headaches.

I agree that 'env' can make good sense if you don't know who/where/when your script is used. For internal projects, I don't really see the advantage.