[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: mksh import
If I understand correctly, I believe someone has suggested that we replace
existing /bin/sh in the base with a more fully featured shell such as ksh93
I would second and support such a move. Unless someone can show that
ksh93 / mksh would adversely affect the performance of the system in a
way then I can think of no reason why this should not be done. By providing
ksh93 / mksh
as /bin/sh in the base it provides a guarantee to developers that they are
able to take
advantage of the most powerful and efficient features that a modern shell
has to offer.
In doing so NetBSD will be a better system for it.
I would recommend that David Korn's ksh93 be used as the default shell in
Mr Korn actively maintains and improves ksh93 and has done so for over 20
The latest version, ksh93t was recently released. Mr. Korn through his
the Austin / SUS group has gone to great lengths to ensure correct POSIX
ksh93. Ksh93 has shown itself to be much more efficient than other shells.
someone has already mentioned, ksh93 is probably the closest thing to a
shell as any other shell.
I understand that some people probably want mksh to be used in part because
it is licensed
under the BSD license. I also would like to see all software released with
NetBSD under a
BSD license (c'mon CLANG / LLVM!). But having said that, IMO mksh is not on
ksh93 in performance and it differs from ksh93 in features. At some point in
the future when
mksh can show complete compatibility with ksh93 and achieve a close
performance then I would think it appropriate to use mksh as the default
shell in base.
Main Index |
Thread Index |