Subject: Re: Re: [ksh93-integration-discuss] Re: ksh88->ksh93 migration plan --------
> David Korn <dgk at research.att.com> wrote: > > > > do not really make me trust in the stability of ksh93. > > Should you trust the stability of any software? To a large extent, it > > depends on the regression test suite. Do you trust the stability > > of cc or gcc? Should you stick to one version forever? Should you not > > bring in new features to the language? What if standards bodies > > dictate changes? > > I see both significant enhancements and bug fixes mixed in > ksh93 development. As a result, it is possible that enhancements > introduce new bugs, even in areas which are not directly affected. > This is why critical projects like gcc usually have both experimental > and stable branches. With significant enhancements like optimization which could have an effect, they have been introduced with conditional compilation so that both stable and expermintal versions could be built. > > > > > - Greater interoperability between operating systems: Currently Linux > > > > and some of the other Unix derivates (AFAIK AIX) ship ksh93 as > > > > /usr/bin/ksh > > > This is not an issue in my opinion. For a complex shell script, > > > it is relatively easy to also create an installation script which > > > finds a matching shell. > > Maybe it is easy for you, but this has not been our experience. > > I suspect that Glenn Fowler has many war stories in dealing > > with the shells on about 40 different systems. > > It obviously depends on the shell features one actually uses. > > In any case, it is trivial to check for /usr/bin/ksh93, which > was the point in question. > > > > > - There would be no need to make the old ksh88 OpenSource (which also > > > > means: Less work for the lawyers... :-) ). > > > I do not understand that issue anyway. As far as I know, ksh93 > > > is a derivative of the ksh88 code. If AT&T allows to ship the > > > ksh93 code, why would there any legal reason not to ship the > > > ksh88 code? Or is there rather another reason behind this? > > The ksh88 code has never been made Open Source and given the effort > > for ksh93, there seems to be little incentive to do so. > > I beleive that there are three organizations that have the > > right to make ksh88 open source but so far none have > > chosen to do so. > > Doesn't the fact that ksh93 has already been released make > things easier for ksh88? It might have, but recently AT&T was bought by SBC and I have not interest in finding out what their view of open source is. It took us years to get ksh93 with the old AT&T lawyers and to I have not interest in starting again with the new SBC lawyers. > > Gunnar David Korn dgk at research.att.com
