news@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz (USENET News System) (03/09/90)
Does any shell wizard out there know what standard shells will be available on UNIX System V.4. That is, I've heard ksh will be, what about csh and will it have any enhancements. What about sh (and which version, will it have functions etc. or just be the standard BSD /bin/sh with very little). Martin. D
eric@mks.com (Eric Gisin) (03/10/90)
In article <269@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>, news@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz (USENET News System) writes: > > Does any shell wizard out there know what standard shells will be available on > UNIX System V.4. That is, I've heard ksh will be, what about csh and will it > have any enhancements. What about sh (and which version, will it have functions > etc. or just be the standard BSD /bin/sh with very little). Why would System V.4 have the BSD /bin/sh? The V.4 shell is the V.3.2 shell with job control. Job control is not enabled by default, only when the shell is interactive and invoked as "jsh". Presumably they used this method instead of Korn's -m option so that you just change your login shell to /bin/jsh. (This is from the new SVID, I haven't seen V.4 yet).
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (03/10/90)
In article <269@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> martin@macadam (Martin Foord) writes: >Does any shell wizard out there know what standard shells will be available on >UNIX System V.4. That is, I've heard ksh will be, what about csh and will it >have any enhancements. What about sh (and which version, will it have functions >etc. or just be the standard BSD /bin/sh with very little). Nobody in their right mind would "upgrade" the SVR3.2 /bin/sh to the 4.3BSD /bin/sh, especially when it would break existing customer applications. ksh and csh have been announced as part of SVR4.0.
prc@erbe.se (Robert Claeson) (03/10/90)
In article <269@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>, news@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz (USENET News System) writes: > Does any shell wizard out there know what standard shells will be available on > UNIX System V.4. That is, I've heard ksh will be, Yes. Works well in "vi" mode, but "set -o emacs" is nicer. > what about csh and will it have any enhancements. Csh is there, yes. I don't know about enhancements (haven't had time to check), but it is *not* 8-bit clean. Looks more-or-less like the normal BSD version. > What about sh (and which version, will it have functions etc. > or just be the standard BSD /bin/sh with very little). BSD's /bin/sh is a very old version that is based on the one from UNIX v7. System V Release 4 definitely includes the System V version of /bin/sh with functions, 8-bit cleanness and all other features that you've came to expect from a modern /bin/sh. -- Robert Claeson E-mail: rclaeson@erbe.se ERBE DATA AB
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/11/90)
>Nobody in their right mind would "upgrade" the SVR3.2 /bin/sh to the 4.3BSD >/bin/sh, especially when it would break existing customer applications. Translation: yes, it'll have functions - if it didn't, AT&T would have a riot on their hands. It also supports job control, as Eric Gisin noted, although you may have to invoke it as "jsh" to get it. I don't think it includes any other big extensions; i.e., no history or anything like that. (If you have something like "ile" or "atty" or the Andrew "tm", or a terminal with history or snarf'n'barf in it, or.... you may not need it.) >ksh and csh have been announced as part of SVR4.0. I think the Korn shell is one of the very recent versions ("ksh-88"?). The C shell is derived (with few changes, as I remember) from the SunOS 4.1 C shell (yes, 4.1), which means it's basically the 4.3BSD one, with assorted Sun additions like "hardpaths" and the ability to deal sanely with characters with the 8th bit set (said ability added in SunOS 4.1).
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/13/90)
>Csh is there, yes. I don't know about enhancements (haven't had time to >check), but it is *not* 8-bit clean. Looks more-or-less like the normal >BSD version. You musta seen a different version than I did, then, because: 1) the SunOS 4.1 version is 8-bit clean - I tried it and 2) I "diff"ed the source of the two versions, and the main differences were caused, as I remember, by workarounds for WE32K compiler bugs.
loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) (03/13/90)
In article <12332@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: > Nobody in their right mind would "upgrade" the SVR3.2 /bin/sh to the 4.3BSD > /bin/sh, especially when it would break existing customer applications. That's only the common sense attitude! 8-} Encore's UMAX4.2 (loosely based upon 4.2BSD) included the BRL version of the SysV3.2 /bin/sh. Encore's 4.3BSD release seems to have had this replaced by the older 4.3BSD /bin/sh. A note in one of their documents says to check (and change) all the shell scripts and Makefiles on your machine to "assure BSD compatibility". The SysV3.2 shell is still available in "/usr/old/sh". And, on a positive note, they do the world one favor and distribute ksh as a standard part of every system. That, at least, can be used to replace /bin/sh (with just the loss of "^" or so). Actually, ksh appears to be the 1985 version (which is about the time when the BRL shell was incorporated into UMAX4.2). Oops. John -- John Robert LoVerso Xylogics, Inc. 617/272-8140 x284 loverso@Xylogics.COM Annex Terminal Server Development Group DISCLAIMER: These thoughts and typos are my own...
chet@cwns1.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) (03/14/90)
In article <8704@xenna.Xylogics.COM> loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) writes:
$ Encore's UMAX4.2 (loosely based upon 4.2BSD) included the BRL
$ version of the SysV3.2 /bin/sh.
$ Actually, ksh appears to be the 1985 version (which is about the time when
$ the BRL shell was incorporated into UMAX4.2). Oops.
It is my impression that BRL (Doug Gwyn, specifically) distributes a shell
based on the SysV.2 /bin/sh with job control, emacs-style editing, and
other goodies (though it's not as nice as bash :-). Doug doesn't
distribute the SysV.3.2 sh, especially not one from 1985 :-).
Chet Ramey
--
Chet Ramey "I'm majoring in Eastern Philosophy and
Network Services Group cowboy movies -- the yin, the yang, and
Case Western Reserve University the bang bang."
chet@ins.CWRU.Edu -- "American Flyers"davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (03/14/90)
I just got a chance to test ksh88d from the toolchest, and I hope
that's the one they have in V.4. It's really nice, even if you've been
using an earlier version. Good stuff.
--
bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen)
sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX
moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc
"Getting old is bad, but it beats the hell out of the alternative" -anoncjc@ulysses.att.com (Chris Calabrese) (03/16/90)
In article <8704@xenna.Xylogics.COM> loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) writes: > > Encore's UMAX4.2 (loosely based upon 4.2BSD) included the BRL > version of the SysV3.2 /bin/sh. > Actually, ksh appears to be the 1985 version (which is about the time when > the BRL shell was incorporated into UMAX4.2). Oops. My understanding (as told by Dave Korn) is that early beta's of sVr4 had whatever ksh Summit happened to have on hand. The official release includes ksh88 (I think revision D). -- Name: Christopher J. Calabrese Brain loaned to: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ att!ulysses!cjc cjc@ulysses.att.com Obligatory Quote: ``Anyone who would tell you that would also try and sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.''
daveb@i88.isc.com (Dave Burton) (03/18/90)
In article <3019@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: |:ksh and csh have been announced as part of SVR4.0. |I think the Korn shell is one of the very recent versions ("ksh-88"?). a, b, c, or d? :-) -- Dave Burton uunet!ism780c!laidbak!daveb