[net.sources.d] KORN SHELL SOURCE REQUIRES SYSV SOURCE LICENSE, SORRY

levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (06/30/86)

In article <1015@ttrdc.UUCP>, levy@ttrdc.UUCP (I) write:
>I cannot speak for /bin/sh but however ksh (superset of Bourne, many bells
>and whistles, almost as efficient as SysV Bourne) is available as source
>for approximately $2000 (non AT&T sites) and will compile under a number of
>BSD variants as well as SysV.  It was authored by David Korn of Bell Labor-
>atories (ulysses!dgk).  Korn himself posted a notice to this effect in 
>net.unix-wizards [I think] some time ago.

Folks:

I wish to sincerely apologize for a posting where I was trying to be helpful
but unfortunately I overlooked the obvious, meaning that I have done no good
(groan...)

In order to get Korn shell source, you need a SysV source license.  Therefore
it won't do you much good if you don't already have this and want to keep your
old BSD as is (weakly don flame shield....)  Officially this is AT&T policy
at present, and I have no idea whether it is due to change in the future (I am
not told and if I was told probably I would not be allowed to say).

I still wish to say that in the long run you will be better off moving
your whole machine to SysV, whether binary only or source is up to
you.  The support and stability will be better than you would get with
any brand of BSD, and the OS and utilities are being constantly im-
proved.  Many BSD applications will compile under SysV as is, and many
others will do so with but minor upgrading.  There are also authorized
vendors (like HP-UX, though they may be restricted to certain machines)
which let you have the best of both worlds with a BSD compatible interface
in a SysV environment (or vice versa depending on how you choose to look at
it :-) ).

Again, my apologies for the glaring obvious mistake....
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
						vax135}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy

chuq@sun.uucp (Chuq Von Rospach) (07/02/86)

> I still wish to say that in the long run you will be better off moving
> your whole machine to SysV, whether binary only or source is up to
> you.  The support and stability will be better than you would get with
> any brand of BSD, and the OS and utilities are being constantly im-
> proved.  Many BSD applications will compile under SysV as is, and many
> others will do so with but minor upgrading.

Hoo, boy.... There are SOME people that might disagree with this...
You think you had to don your flame suit over ksh???? *grin*

> Again, my apologies for the glaring obvious mistake....

In advance? 
-- 
:From the lofty realms of Castle Plaid:          Chuq Von Rospach 
chuq%plaid@sun.COM	FidoNet: 125/84		 CompuServe: 73317,635
{decwrl,decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,pyramid,seismo,ucbvax}!sun!plaid!chuq

Dessert is probably the most important stage of the meal, since it will be
the last thing your guests remember before they pass out all over the table.
					-- The Anarchist Cookbook

george@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu (George Boyce) (07/03/86)

In article <1029@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
>[...]
>I still wish to say that in the long run you will be better off moving
>your whole machine to SysV, whether binary only or source is up to
>you.  The support and stability will be better than you would get with
>any brand of BSD, and the OS and utilities are being constantly im-
>proved.  Many BSD applications will compile under SysV as is, and many
>others will do so with but minor upgrading.  There are also authorized
>vendors (like HP-UX, though they may be restricted to certain machines)
>which let you have the best of both worlds with a BSD compatible interface
>in a SysV environment (or vice versa depending on how you choose to look at
>it :-) ).
>[...]

I know the net will see plenty of flames about what you just said so I
won't bother to send mine there too... [I changed my mind!] But you
have got to be kidding.  BSD Unix is alive and doing quite well, thank
you. The support given to it via the Ultrix development team is only
one example but the one with which I am most familiar. I am not about
ready to even *use* a System V system, let alone use it for program
development or serious applications. I'll use the Ultrix System V
compatibility mode when I have to write explicit System V code.

Send flames/comments to /dev/null. I know people who prefer to use MVS,
so I guess I shouldn't comment about System V.

-George

[Disclaimer: I'm not really me and you can't prove it...]
-- 
George Boyce, Academic Computing, Cornell University
george@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu (128.84.252.10), george@crnlcs.bitnet