On 8/8/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 08/08/07, Josh Hurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/8/07, Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Tim Bray wrote: > > > > On Aug 7, 2007, at 9:38 AM, Chris Pickett wrote: > > > > > > > >> I think we have a bigger problem than /bin/ksh: Does Indiana or > > > >> Opensolaris want to address the problem that Opensolaris still uses > > > >> the original bourne shell as /bin/sh? Most modern Unices use either > > > >> bash or ksh as /bin/sh > > > > > > > > This is well known to be an area fraught with religion. Having said > > > > that, my impression is that a large majority of the linux community, > > > > and substantially all of the OS X community, live in bash, which is / > > > > bin/sh. I bet that quite a few of the younger linux & mac geeks > > > > don't even know there are other shells :) Early releases of OS X > > > > had tcsh and that provoked much beating of breasts and gnashing of > > > > teeth until they switched to bash. -Tim > > > > > > Wait though. Why aren't we just applying the logic of the Nevada GNU > > > project design[1]? So if I understand it correctly, /bin/sh would > > > remain the Bourne Shell > > > > -1 > > I strongly disagree. /bin/sh needs to be replaced. > > Causing existing Solaris users more pain by making /bin/sh bash is > askin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. /bin/sh should be > the bourne shell as it is supposed to be.
Didn't you say earlier you're OK with /bin/ksh being ksh93? Bruno _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
