stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) (12/08/89)
In article <1717@mtunb.ATT.COM>, jcm@mtunb.ATT.COM (John McMillan) writes: > > 1) Replacing SH with KSH is a serious breach of sanity. > KSH is ALMOST a superset of SH -- but the differences are VERY > REAL. It can waste hours or days for support people when folks > play this game. That's funny, because the latest release of the KornShell from the Toolchest specifically lists the UNIX-PC as one of the systems on which ksh has been used as a replacement for sh. Perhaps you're referring to the older version of ksh (circa 1986) that comes with the 3b1 ? Richard Stevens Health Systems International, New Haven, CT stevens@hsi.com ... { uunet | yale } ! hsi ! stevens
jcm@mtunb.ATT.COM (John McMillan) (12/08/89)
In article <901@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) writes: >In article <1717@mtunb.ATT.COM>, jcm@mtunb.ATT.COM (John McMillan) writes: >> >> 1) Replacing SH with KSH is a serious breach of sanity. >> KSH is ALMOST a superset of SH -- but the differences are VERY >> REAL. It can waste hours or days for support people when folks >> play this game. > >That's funny, because the latest release of the KornShell from the >Toolchest specifically lists the UNIX-PC as one of the systems >on which ksh has been used as a replacement for sh. Perhaps you're >referring to the older version of ksh (circa 1986) that comes with >the 3b1 ? The MAJOR cases of MY being mis-directed on a 3B1 happened a coupla years ago. Even in the past 4 weeks I've heard someone complain about this practice -- regarding a 6386, I believe. Discrepancies between the two are numerous, but I don't keep the lists. The last time _I_ was bitten by one of these differences was a few months ago when something like 'set -- getopt ...' got me, as I remember. (Nope, I don't remember which type of hardware I was driving at the time.) _I_ am not about to presume someone has performed an exhaustive test of the compatibility mentioned in a Toolchest article. I do not dispute it: I just find it irrelevant. How much is life improved by the replacement? Very little for me. Not enough to warrant the possible down-stream aggrevation, certainly. I exec ksh in my .profile and I use it all the time... by its name. If YOU want to add to your experience of shared-suffering on this planet, then DO things like this: I'm more interested in minimizing MY pain than yours !-) My comment was directed towards sparing folks trouble, not invoking biblical threats.... There's common agreement _MY_ sanity was breached and sunk LOoooong ago. jc mcmillan -- att!mtunb!jcm -- muttering for self, not THEM
rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (12/08/89)
|> |> 1) Replacing SH with KSH is a serious breach of sanity. |> KSH is ALMOST a superset of SH -- but the differences are VERY |> REAL. It can waste hours or days for support people when folks |> play this game. | |That's funny, because the latest release of the KornShell from the |Toolchest specifically lists the UNIX-PC as one of the systems |on which ksh has been used as a replacement for sh. Perhaps you're |referring to the older version of ksh (circa 1986) that comes with |the 3b1 ? Being able to do something does not immediately make it an intelligent thing to do, no matter what any documentation or note says. (I could easily drive my car at 120 MPH in a bridge suppot pylon, but I question the value and intelligence at doing it... :-) -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ BITNET: rjg%sialis.mn.org@nic.mr.net __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...amdahl!bungia!sialis!rjg "Insured against Aircraft, including self-propelled missiles and spacecraft."