[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: /bin/ksh as a default POSIX shell



> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
> > 
> > 	Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine 
> > subsystem. I meant echo -ne.
> 
> Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses.

	If you noted I have not used the word POSIX anywhere. I just said that there 
are tons things that will break.

	You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts. 

	Also ash does with -e what all other sh clones do. It just parses opts 
differenly so -ne is not equivalent to -n -e.

[snip]

	IMHO: 
	1. Ash: You cannot use ash as /bin/sh on linux without breaking at least some 
things (actually a lot).
	2. Ksh: Personally, I have had enough dealing with idiotic  60K programs
written in ksh just because "it is the standard shell supplied on (insert 
commercial *x here)" and you are not supposed to contaminate it with freeware. 
	This is not the case for debian. Also, perl is in the base on debian. So I 
do not see any particular urge in ksh-ifying things that do not need 
ksh-ifying. It
is said in the declaration of human rights that no-one should be subjected to 
cruel
and unusual punishment. 
	Having a clone just because there are people that will not write their
installation in anything else (I Blame M...) is enough. But making it the 
default
shell. No thank you. It will be the same story as bash. One year later most 
scripts
will be rigged with ksh-specifics the way they are now with bash-specifics 
(the echo -ne instead of -n -e for example) ;-)

	This of course is just IMHO ;-)

-- 
Anton R. Ivanov ARI2-RIPE
mailto:aivanov@sigsegv.cx
Today's deliverables will have to be delayed because:

Dyslexics retyping hosts file on servers


Attachment: pgpuFbPJ7BTZJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: