Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb.ucdavis.edu!cck From: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Is there a c-shell or bourne shell clone for OS/2? Message-ID: <5151@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> Date: 19 Aug 89 03:01:09 GMT References: <121622@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <7442@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: uucp@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Reply-To: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Organization: University of California, Davis Lines: 23 In article <7442@microsoft.UUCP> leefi@microsoft.UUCP (Lee Fisher) writes: >> Is there a c-shell or bourne shell interpreter for OS/2? Is not the MKS Toolkit available in an OS/2 version? You get the Korn shell plus many other goodies. Now, I have a couple of questions. First, why would anyone want the C-shell for OS/2? I thought the whole point of OS/2 (other than making big bucks for Microsquat) was a graphical interface. The C-shell is straight out of the model 33 teletype line-oriented world of UNIX. Unless I'm missing something, this sounds like turbo charging your VW, and then adding a governor.... Second, why would anyone be willing to pay $350 bucks (the price of one C-shell for OS/2) on top of what OS/2 costs to get something that looks like UNIX, circa 1979, without a fraction of the capabilities of 1979 UNIX? Moreoever, you can get real 1989 UNIX for less than the cost of OS/2 plus the (Hamilton) C-shell. I realize that it has been said "there's a sucker born every minute," but this seems an inadequate explanation. Maybe it's drugs? The summer heat? The water?