Seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

How did your answer get up-voted 7 times. This confuses me; you put me down AND didn't answer my question.

You asked the equivalent of 'how is babby formed?'

It's not that hard, provided the people who wrote it are aware that other Unices exist besides Linux.

(I've done a bit of porting to OpenBSD. It's a pet peeve of mine when people hardcode references to bash for no good reason.)

It doesn't help matters at all that bash leaks bashism-support when run as /bin/sh -- it's much better that people specify bash than ship scripts that falsely claim to be bourne-compatible (since they are unlikely to test against a pure-bourne shell).

Not having a /bin/bash a losing battle -- it's way too late to get people to use the theoretically more correct #!/usr/bin/env bash just because the greybeard unices don't ship with it (despite shipping with plenty of other GPL software) and their package managers put it (when they are nice) in /usr/local/bin

Edit: That's not a diss on the greybeard unices -- I used FreeBSD and loved it dearly for years. I actually really like that they segregate all user-installed packages into a seperate root at /usr/local/ -- but for practical reasons I always make symlinks for binaries with well known locations (to use the robots.txt / favicon.ico pejorative).

It's about as easy as translating from American into English.

Did I seriously get down-voted for asking a legitimate technical question? That's an abusive down-vote in my opinion, people should be able to ask technical questions without being ridiculed because they don't know the specific inner-workings of different OS kernels.

Um, BSD is a unix, right? Did you mean to ask about porting from Linux to BSD?

Ah ok, fair enough. How hard is porting from Linux to BSD?

In my experience not hard as long as you wrote portable code.

The hardest bit is compiling a universal binary.