On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Joerg Schilling <[email protected]> wrote: > Simon Toedt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Joerg Schilling >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Lionel Cons <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Problems: >> >> - SchilliX uses Bourne shell as /usr/bin/sh, not ksh93. This pretty >> >> much kills the option >> > >> > Could you please stop spreading lies? >> >> I'm new to the list, so excuse me if this has been discussed beforehand. > > First a note: Lionel Cons is well known for frequently posting false claims > to confuse people. This is not the first similar posting from him.
I have serious doubts about that comment. If I look up 'joerg schilling ksh93' in a search engine I get very wild comments from you but without substantial claims what the problem is. If I look up 'lionel cons' I get search results about a well respected scientist (even a project manager!) at CERN. So at least at the first glance your comments about Mr. Cons do not fit. > >> Joerg, could you please explain what the lie here exactly is? I don't get it. > > What dou you like to get explained? I think I asked enough questions in my last mail: - Who are the other maintainers of the Bourne shell? Please list three or four persons. bash has at least four, including Chet Ramey, Brian Fox and lots of other people. ksh93 has at least David G. Korn, Glenn Fowler, Phong Vo, Jeff Korn and Roland Mainz as recent active developers. Who's your crew? - Who is going to fix all software packages which expect that /usr/bin/sh is something more posixly? Does this project (Belenix, not SchillyX) have the manpower to adjust every configure, every call to system(), every call to popen(), every perl/python script with embedded calls to the shell? This might be a question for the Belenix project leads to answer. - Who is going to push the patches to upstream and convinces them to take them? This sound pretty much like an endless Don Quichotte fight which just consumes developer time for no purpose and benefit. I have doubts that some projects will actually accept such patches. - What are the benefits from reintroducing the Bourne shell as /usr/bin/sh? It seems everyone else has moved on and uses ksh93 in Illumos and it's clones/distributions. >> Also, who really wants to go back to the Bourne shell (the old one... not >> bash)? >> Who is going to maintain it? bash and ksh93 have active communities >> with many people working on it, while for the Bourne shell I only see >> one active person, which is Joerg Schilling. > > Do you really believe this? Then you seem to miss basic information. What is this basic information? Please educate me. > >> Who is going to fix all software packages which expect that >> /usr/bin/sh is something more posixly? Does this project have the >> manpower to adjust every configure, every call to system(), every call >> to popen(), every perl/python script with embedded calls to the shell? >> Who is going to push the patches to upstream and convinces them to >> take them? This sound pretty much like an endless Don Quichotte fight >> which just consumes developer time for no purpose and benefit. > > Didn't you get it? Lionel Cons did send a lie, do you believe that it makes > sense to start a discussion based on a lie? I have severe doubts in the 'lie' comment as his mail did IMO not contain enough information to make up a lie. I lack context. What is this context? Simon _______________________________________________ belenix-discuss mailing list http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/belenix-discuss http://groups.google.com/group/belenix-discuss
