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?