[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: mksh import
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 20:41:49 -0600
Dad - Kent - <pobox0123%hotmail.com@localhost> wrote:
> 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
> / mksh.
> 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
> the base.
> 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
> involvement with
> the Austin / SUS group has gone to great lengths to ensure correct POSIX
> behavior in
> ksh93. Ksh93 has shown itself to be much more efficient than other shells.
> And as
> 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
> par with
> 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
> approximation of
> performance then I would think it appropriate to use mksh as the default
> shell in base.
> Kent Wilson
ksh93 sucks for interactive use
NetBSD - Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability
Main Index |
Thread Index |