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