[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

Fri Apr 24 14:38:25 UTC 2015
m.roth at 5-cent.us <m.roth at 5-cent.us>

Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote:
>> > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of
>> > ksh88 licensing problems.  Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh
>> > course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I
>> > couldn't give people copies of the shell to take home.
>> AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997.
>> Since
> In 1998 each user had to sign a license; you couldn't give away copies
> to other people.
>    Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:09:30 -0400 (EDT)
>    From: David Korn <dgk at research.att.com>
>    If you are going to make copies for use at your course there is
>    no problem.  However, if users are to get their own copies
>    to take home with them, then we need to get each of them
>    to accpet the license agreement that is on the web.
> [ snip other options, including printing out the license and having
>   people sign it and sending the results back! ]

Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution?

Oh, and to clarify what I said before, our production shell scripts, in
the mid-nineties, were corporately required to go to ksh.

I didn't know bash till I got to CentOS (I don't remember it in RH 9...),
and it's what I prefer (my manager and some other folks here like zsh),
but bash lets me use all my c-shell-isms that I learned when I started in
UNIX in '91.

     mark !se....