documentation: Bourne shell -> POSIX shell

[ziaee]

Summary

The FreeBSD shell is a POSIX compatible shell. It evolved over several
decades from the Almquist shell, which was preceeded a decade before
that by the Bourne shell. Most readers today have never seen a Bourne
shell. If someone wants to learn to use our shell, they need to look for
tutorials on the POSIX shell. Align descriptions through out the tree
with this reality, consistent with it's manual and common parlance.

[ziaee]

tweak

[tembun_bk.ru]

documentation/content/en/books/faq/_index.adoc

421

I'm not sure if that would be accurate. As far as I know, .shrc is not really a POSIX thing. .shrc seems to be specific to FreeBSD sh(1). NetBSD, for instance, has almost the same Almquist Shell as /bin/sh (which is POSIX), but it uses .shinit instead of .shrc. So I suspect that this sentence may be a little bit confusing: .shrc is not guaranteed to work with every implementation of POSIX shell.

[ziaee]

Good catch! Switch both shell names in that section to manpage links.

[tembun_bk.ru]

documentation/content/en/books/handbook/config/_index.adoc

589

To me, it doesn't seem necessary to specify that the shell script is POSIX in this case. In fact, all that we can see here is that mycustomscript.sh is executed, we can't tell whether it's POSIX or not. Yes, it has a .sh extension, but the extension itself doesn't mean anything, we can put #!/usr/local/bin/bash inside and it's no longer a POSIX script. So I would suggest to omit this detail here.

[ziaee]

These little touches make all the difference. Thank you for your
conscious thought on these details Artem.

[mhorne]

Not an authority on shells and their lineage, but I certainly agree with your assessment in the description.

documentation/content/en/articles/freebsd-update-server/_index.adoc

92

I think here too.

[ziaee]

add missing copyright symbol. Good catch, thanks for the review!