Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site callan.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!bmcg!cepu!trwrba!trwrb!scgvaxd!wlbr!callan!geoff From: geoff@callan.UUCP Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: I, for one, tried ksh and don't like it Message-ID: <161@callan.UUCP> Date: Thu, 31-May-84 21:47:55 EDT Article-I.D.: callan.161 Posted: Thu May 31 21:47:55 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Jun-84 19:36:55 EDT Organization: Callan Data Systems, Westlake Village, CA Lines: 25 All this "ksh is the greatest thing since sliced beer" stuff prompts me to stick in a contrary opinion. I have had an opportunity to try out ksh. (An illegally-made outside-Bell copy, I might add, but I wasn't the one who took it, ported it, or installed it, and it's not on MY machine that I tried it, so please no anti-piracy flames. I do not support the theft, even though I did take advantage of it long enough to try ksh across a modem.) Anyway, ksh is wonderful IF you don't mind waiting up to 60 seconds for your character echoes. Ksh is bigger than either than csh or sh, and thus tends to swap out more often (and takes longer to swap). If you run in "vi" mode, you will quickly find out that it's not a lot more convenient than the csh history mechanism. If you run in "emacs" mode, it sets your terminal raw and handles character echo itself; this means in practice that on a moderately loaded system echoes can be delayed for quite a while. I haven't seen such annoyingly poor response time since I tried a timesharing system that had been cobbled on top of a batch system, almost 15 years ago. Furthermore, ksh is an incredible example of what happens when you try to design a perfectly-compatible upgrade of an existing program (sh) that has run into natural limits. For my money, ksh is a kludge, and a slow one at that! Geoff Kuenning Callan Data Systems ...!ihnp4!wlbr!callan!geoff