Joseph Kowalski wrote: > Alan and I have just been elaborating as to why dtksh is in such bad > shape. We weren't trying to discourage anybody from possibly fixing it. > > However, given a proper shell in the system (by your definition), why > should dtksh exist at all? Shouldn't we just use that proper shell without > the dt (as in Desk Top) prefix?
Well, several reasons exist for that. 1. an early and incomplete ksh93, as explained before. 2. the CDE environment, which is as good as dead. 3. It *should* have been packaged as a set of loadable modules for ksh93, but instead was distributed as a single binary. 4. CDE is/was the property of at least 4 different legal entities, in the pre-open source era. Instead of attempting to fix dtksh, a better initiative might be to add an independent set of X11 extensions to the current ksh93, with followups for Gnome and KDE. Cheers, Henk
