astksh review

Zdenek Sekera
Tue May 20 21:25:00 GMT 2003

On Behalf Of Karsten Fleischer
> I can remove those nifty 35 UNIX utility builtins, if you want.
> It gets pretty small then.


Why don't you release ksh93 compiled exactly the same way as
it can be found on the ksh release page for other O/S? So if
one has to use several systems one can be sure to find exactly
the same flavour of ksh93?

> > Now that we have the real, honest-to-goodness ksh, do we really need
> > pdksh? Just a suggestion...
> pdksh is a ksh88 clone but differs here and there.
> You can't drop pdksh at once.
> A transition phase is necessary.

Right. The 'here and there' is actually more than that.
Why not keep all shells that one wants to have, just call them
their names: ksh, pdksh, sh, zsh, bash, whatever.
I never understood why some O/S have links in such a way that
you never really know which shell you are using unless you
really try to find out. I mean /bin/sh can be linked to any
other shell by default. Bad practice IMHO, but exists on
all most all O/S flavours I know.

I'd like to be sure that when I have *!/bin/ksh in my script,
I do get the real ksh and something else.

Maybe just my dream, though....



Zdenek Sekera 
LHC Computing Grid Project  
CERN - IT Division  CH-1211 Geneva 23           
Switzerland                 | 

More information about the Cygwin-apps mailing list