>> A consensus for ksh? Among what audience? > Read the scope thread in > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/indiana-discuss/
The question still begs, among what audience. The answer is that the largest potential user-base, currently running linux and freebsd, are not among those requesting ksh. > Neither bash nor tcsh are POSIX shells. tcsh is even worse than bash > as all system scripts will break, bash just breaks 90% of them. You're confusing /bin/sh, the default script shell, with the shell specified in /etc/passwd. Nobody has proposed using tcsh, or any csh variant, as a scripting shell. Enough obfuscation already. > RH, Suse, Ubuntu, Mandrake and Debian ship ksh93 as /usr/bin/ksh by default. Maybe if you install everything by default, but that's not the standard. `which ksh` under standard RH (f7) and Debian (4.0) installs returns: ksh: Command not found. >> Reason for this is that the _most_ important feature of a programming >> shell is compatibility. People who want advanced features use scripting >> languages like perl, python, and ruby, not shells. > > Ah I think you still live in the 80' since you would've noticed that > it has floating point math, functions, multidimensional arrays and > much more. This isn't ksh88 anymore you may remember, we're talking > about ksh93. The answer doesn't address the question, evidently to avoid discussion of the primary theme of the prior post: compatibility 99.999% of systems programmers who need multidimensional arrays will use perl, python, or ruby. Those using ksh will not expect their scripts to work cross-platform. It's exactly this mindset that has reduced Solaris' market share to the single digits. -- Roger Marquis Roble Systems Consulting http://www.roble.com/ _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
