Hi
I'm reading <learning the bash shell>. And in the section - 3.1. The .bash_profile, .bash_logout, and .bashrc Files
bash allows two synonyms for .bash_profile: .bash_login, derived from the C
shell's file named .login, and .profile, derived from the Bourne shell and Korn
shell files named .profile. Only one of these three is read when you log in. If
.bash_profile doesn't exist in your home directory, then bash will look for
.bash_login. If that doesn't exist it will look for .profile.
One advantage of bash's ability to look for either synonym is that you can
retain your .profile if you have been using the Bourne shell. If you need to
add bash-specific commands, you can put them in .bash_profile followed by
the command source .profile. When you log in, all the bash-specific
commands will be executed, and bash will source .profile, executing the
remaining commands. If you decide to switch to using the Bourne shell you
don't have to modify your existing files. A similar approach was intended for
.bash_login and the C shell .login, but due to differences in the basic syntax
of the shells, this is not a good idea.
I'm confused about what the author says about the "advantage". To "source" Bourne shell's .profile in the bash's .bash_profile can only prove that bash is backward-compatible with Bourne shell. It has nothing to do with its ability to look for either synonym. Why does the author think it is an advantage of bash's ability to look for either synonym? This does not make sense at all.