Felix Schulte writes: > > 1. /usr/bin/ksh stays the same, and /usr/bin/ksh93 is shipped as > > the new ksh93. Perhaps someday the two converge again, but not > > now. > I hope you are aware of the consequences of such a step? The inability > of Sun to deliver a decent version of ksh as /usr/bin/ksh already > DAMAGED the reputation of Sun and Solaris. How much further should > this go?
And why, precisely, did you snip away option (2) from my list? And why did you delete the part where I noted that I prefer that option? I don't believe that inflammatory statements about reputation are helpful here. I fully agree that Sun's ksh is stale. In fact, I've said so multiple times. I don't see what more I could possibly do to show that I understand that issue, or illustrate that I understand the "consequences" of failing to solve that problem. What I don't want to see is a "solution" that doesn't work. Solutions that break non-trivial numbers of existing users and provide work- arounds that don't necessarily function correctly are not useful. I'm certain that focusing on Sun's reputation -- good or bad -- won't fix that problem. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
