On 4/19/06, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > If it's really the case that ksh93 is "risky" to drop into place as > /bin/ksh, and that's what we're trying to mitigate, then we ought to > think long and hard about doing it in the first place.
Which alternatives does Sun have? What would you propose to do instead
of replacing /bin/ksh by ksh93q/r/s?
--
// Martin Schaffstall
// EMail: martin.schaffstall at googlemail.com
\\ //
\X/
