[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Stephen Harris
lists at spuddy.orgFri Apr 24 13:08:50 UTC 2015
- Previous message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Next message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:54:48AM -0400, Pete Geenhuizen wrote: > Even though Solaris started using ksh as the default user environment, > almost all of the start scrips were either bourne or bash scripts. With > Bash having more functionality the scripts typically used the > environment that suited the requirements best. Bash is a better command shell for many people, but ksh has better scripting ability (eg typescript options bash has never seen). Many Solaris provided scripts were ksh. 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 scripting 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. (Finally, too late in the day, they changed their licensing). -- rgds Stephen
- Previous message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Next message: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list