Subject: Re: should we replace the shell?
To: J.T. Conklin <>
From: Jason Downs <downsj@CSOS.ORST.EDU>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 12/07/1994 15:18:58
In message <>,
	"J.T. Conklin" writes:
>I think that we should consider replacing our shell with pdksh.  The
>latest pdksh release (5.1.0) is much closer than ash to being POSIX.2
>compliant, it's compiled executable is about the same size, it is only
>slightly slower, and most importantly, it is being actively maintained
>outside of NetBSD.
>The reason I think the last point is the most important is because we
>can expect drawbacks like the performance issues, and the remainder of
>POSIX.2 work, to be addressed by others.  Ash is what it is today, and
>I don't see any volunteers lining up to fix it's defects.  I know that
>the pdksh maintainer is busy just like the rest of us, but he has been
>very responsive to the the patches that I submitted and performance
>issues I discovered during the alpha and beta process.

pdksh is a better shell, yes. and switching to something more ``ksh'' like,
as well as more POSIX compliant has it's good points. this is probably a
good idea.

one of things i would point out, though, is that ``old timer'' ksh users
tend to *really* dislike pdksh, because it misses several features from
ksh. (such as [[ ]] style constructs, at least in the version i tried.)
so, something you might consider is taking pdksh and filling in the
missing pieces.

-------------------// jason downs // downsj@CSOS.ORST.EDU //------------------
                   ----------------------------------------      JD105