Subject: Re: ksh as option for shell [Re: Bash as Option for Shell]
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Sean Davis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/24/2004 11:28:52
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:08:43AM -0500, email@example.com 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:
> 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
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.
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign Sean Davis
X Against HTML aka dive
/ \ Email!