From owner-freebsd-current Sat Oct 31 07:40:08 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id HAA08910 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:40:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from myrddin.demon.co.uk (myrddin.demon.co.uk [158.152.54.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id HAA08876 for ; Sat, 31 Oct 1998 07:40:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dom@myrddin.demon.co.uk) Received: from localhost (myrddin.demon.co.uk) [127.0.0.1] by myrddin.demon.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 1.92 #1) id 0zZEYK-000047-00; Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:25:20 +0000 To: obrien@NUXI.com Cc: Christopher Masto , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shells for you and shells for me References: <3633C8F8.EF8E14D5@null.net> <19981026125133.A2717@netmonger.net> <19981029012621.A26396@nuxi.com> From: Dom Mitchell In-Reply-To: "David O'Brien"'s message of "Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:26:21 -0800" X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:25:20 +0000 Message-Id: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "David O'Brien" writes: > I'd prefer to remove ash for pdksh as it is a little bit nicer in the > interactive department. Not only that, but it allows to say that we have a ksh in the base system, which for a lot of commercial unix shops is quite an important feature these days. To be frank, I think that pdksh is definitely something that we should be looking at for that reason alone. If we import it into the tree and leave it installed as /bin/ksh, then people can test it at their leisure to see if it is worth replacing /bin/sh, and we also gain a ksh. It's a good situation. -Dom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message