Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mgweed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!mgnetp!mgweed!rjk From: rjk@mgweed.UUCP (Randy King) Newsgroups: net.followup,net.unix Subject: Re: ksh availability Message-ID: <15757@mgweed.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 23:51:15 EST Article-I.D.: mgweed.15757 Posted: Tue Mar 5 23:51:15 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 7-Mar-85 03:50:47 EST References: <10005@ulysses.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Consumer Products - Montgomery Illinois Lines: 31 Xref: watmath net.followup:4600 net.unix:3837 <><><><> Although I am an employee of AT&T, I have always expressed my personal opinions of our products openly (much to the dismay of some) whether I felt it was good, mediocre, or bad. I say that so I don't sound like yet another corporate commercial. We have been using Dave's shell (ksh) for over a year now, and I can confidently say that it has increased the efficiency of those who have used it. I have used Mashey's shell, Bourne's shell, and toyed with the "csh." All are great in their own right, but I feel that ksh has finally pulled them all together and has improved on them. The history functions, job control, vi mode, emacs mode, math and array processing are incredible and a joy to use. Seriously, if I didn't already have it I would get it. I'm pleased to see that it is now available to everybody. When I first made it the "default" shell, I didn't tell anyone to see what would break. After a couple of weeks and no reports, I let folks in on it. If you like csh and need /bin/sh compatibility, ksh will probably meet or exceed your expectations. When someone posting a shell archive caveats with "use standard shell, not csh" the subset of "standard" shells includes ksh. Sorry again for the commercial, but I feel that this chunk of code can benefit many folks outside of the company. Like I said, these are only my own opinions. Randy King AT&T-CP@MG ihnp4!mgweed!rjk