Subject: Re: Proposal for new utility in base: bin/nc
To: Lasse Hiller?e Petersen <email@example.com>
From: Matthias Buelow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/20/2001 02:55:58
Lasse Hiller?e Petersen writes:
>I believe someone mentioned removing ksh (really pdksh). I would appreciate
>that, especially if it could be arranged to also get David Korn's "real"
This would be a step backwards, IMHO. I always found it rather annoying
that FreeBSD and now MacOS X are the only recent (with recent being,
shipped in the last 5 to 6 years or so) systems _not_ having /bin/ksh.
All commercial systems do. Most Gnu/Linux systems do so by default
(tho some have it as rpm which needs to be installed extra, like most
base utilities on those systems) and given the surprising unpredictability
of the feature set of /bin/sh across many systems (on some, it's the
non-POSIX SysV Bourne shell, on others it's the POSIX sh (read: ksh),
while on some free ones it's Gnu bash or the ash-derived 4.4BSD sh),
the only shell you could be relatively sure about is ksh88 as /bin/ksh,
that's why I write most of my scripts for it.
A better idea would be, imho, to make the /bin/sh ash-hack identical with
/bin/ksh (after some testing and fixing, like fixing /etc/rc, or one of
the rc scripts, which break when you do that, I think there was some
discussion on that about half a year ago already.) This is also
interesting because ksh is a bit more like the SUSv2 sh standard than
the NetBSD /bin/sh currently is.