On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:08:43AM -0500, chap0@cs.purdue.edu wrote:
> Chris Pinnock wrote:
> 
> > ksh is pretty good these days (set -o emacs to get the history editing
> > commands and so on).
> 
> That reminds me ... now that actual ksh comes with an open source license:
> 
>   http://www.research.att.com/~gsf/download/faq.license.html
> 
> what are the chances of its ever being promoted from a 'package' and used in
> the system in place of the pdksh clone that is currently installed as /bin/ksh?

As for the chances of real ksh kicking pdksh out, I'm not a NetBSD
developer, so I can only say "I dunno, but I hope so. It is the Real
Thing(tm) after all."

> Real ksh is *very* good these days, but it's frustrating that you kind of
> don't dare writing ksh scripts that include l11n or date/time computations
> or formatted output or long options or doc generation or loadable extensions
> or any of the other things ksh does, because you always have to consider your
> script running on a system where something else is installed as /bin/ksh that
> isn't.

Personally, I don't use ksh, (pd or otherwise), although I keep meaning to
get familiar with it. But if we could get rid of pdksh in favor of real ksh,
that would be nice.

-Sean

--
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign                   Sean Davis
 X  Against HTML                       aka dive
/ \ Email!