Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com To: cygwin@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: KSH is pdksh References: From: dkarr@tcsi.com (David M. Karr) Date: 25 Jan 2001 08:21:53 -0800 In-Reply-To: Mumit Khan's message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:07:04 -0600 (CST)" Message-ID: Lines: 29 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) Emacs/20.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >>>>> "Mumit" == Mumit Khan writes: Mumit> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> "David M. Karr" wrote: >> > "/usr/bin/bash.exe". Poof. You have Korn shell. As far as I can >> > tell, Bash can substitute for Korn shell in every area I'm familiar >> > with. Mumit> Nope, bash is not ksh. There are quite a few ksh93 features that are not Mumit> implemented in bash (and possibly quite a few from ksh88 days, but I Mumit> don't have details on those). I'm not going to dispute that, but could you please give us some examples of ksh88 and ksh93 features that aren't transparently available in bash? I'd like to know exactly what problems I could run into. I haven't noticed anything yet. Does someone know which canonical ksh version (ksh88 or ksh93) the Solaris ksh matches? Mumit> Please don't. I personally very much dislike misleading links. If people Mumit> want ksh, they should go and port it using the AT&T's now open source Mumit> ksh93. It would sure be nice to bring a maintainable ksh into the Cygwin fold, just for the sake of increased Unix compatibility. -- =================================================================== David M. Karr ; w:(425)487-8312 ; TCSI & Best Consulting dkarr@tcsi.com ; Java/Unix/XML/C++/X ; BrainBench CJ12P (#12004) -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple