[nu11ptr]

Why is it different from any other software just because it is a shell script? Do you read the kernel sources for your OS before running it? Your web browser? My point is not that we should blindly run things, but that we all have criteria for what software we choose to run that typically doesn't rely on being familiar with its source code.

[arghwhat]

Well, yes, I read code of (and contribute to) the kernel and web browsers I use, but that's not really relevant.

There's a big difference between "large, structured projects developed by thousands of companies with a clear goal" vs. "humongous shell script by small group that downloads and runs random things from the internet without proper validation".

And my own personal opinion: The venn diagram of "Projects that have trustworthy design and security practices", and "projects that are based on multi-thousand line bash scripts" is two circles, each on their own distinct piece of paper.

(Not trying to be mean to the developers - we all had to build our toolkits from somewhere.)

[freedomben]

Heh, this reminds me a bit of when on live television Contessa Brewer tried to dismiss Mo Brooks with "well do you have an economics degree?" and he actually did and responded with "Yes ma'am I do, highest honors" :-D [1]

I have no problem with (and have written a few) giant bash scripts, and I completely agree with you. A giant bash script isn't going to have many eyes on it, whereas a huge project like the kernel is going to get a ton of scrutiny.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mtQyEd-zS4

[hnfong]

I believe GP implicitly assumes that bash (and generally POSIX-y shell script) has lots of quirks and footguns (to which I generally agree).

After skimming through the source code though, I'd say the concerns are probably overstated.