[CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.comMon Apr 27 15:40:36 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 Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > > > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown. > Not sure why it matters with a standalone application like sh, but I think a lot of people have been put off by the GPL incompatibility with your tools. If you want popularity - and usability, a dual-license would work as perl shows. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
- 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