>I am one of many people who have great difficulty understanding why >it is necessary to retain a twenty year old shell as the main shell program. >Since ksh was designed to run legacy Bourne shell scripts, the stubborn >insistance on continuing to use this this thing is very frustrating. It isn't >as bad as csh for programming, but pretty awful nevertheless. And the, >"you can always use /usr/xpg4/bin/sh" argument doesn't wash. It's too >hard to always insert re-exec code in every shell script. Using the lowest >common denominator with hard-wired /bin/sh would be easiest.....if only >one implementation had something more recent than a 1980's version >of Bourne's shell. Thank you. - Bruce
Have you read the discussions about this? I suggest you do before we rathole on this again. Casper
