Felix Schulte writes: > > 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? > Because I didn't read it yet. Option (1) was horrific enough and > required a response.
Because you didn't read the rest of the message? Uhm. OK. > Besides: Option (2) sucks, too. Do you really > think that replacing one Sun-only version of ksh with another Sun-only > version of ksh makes the situation better? I doubt it. I think you're jumping to conclusions here. Option (2) is making the new ksh that's integrated as /usr/bin/ksh sufficiently compatible with the existing (old) /usr/bin/ksh such that we feel there's no point in keeping that old implementation around. We can therefore flush it. In fact, I suspect that getting to the point of being _that_ certain is what will be required in order to make the change, at least in Sun's Solaris distribution. (Stability may be a lesser concern in other distributions.) How we get to that point is _still_ a matter of conjecture. I never said that achieving it involved creating yet another private Sun branch of the sources. Perhaps it might. I certainly hope it does not. Until someone posts details on how each incompatibility can be handled, we won't know. > One very tiny example to illustrate the reason why I learned to hate > Sun ksh. Together with other students I am in charge of a large I agree with you. You needn't continue to argue with me about the awfulness of stale code, as though I were somehow arguing in favor of it. I get it. -- 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
