Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 04:09:14 -0800 From: Thomas Stephens <tas@stephens.org> To: Greg Black <gjb@comkey.com.au> Cc: Jim Pirzyk <Jim.Pirzyk@disney.com>, Thomas Stephens <tas@stephens.org>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ksh93? Message-ID: <199902171209.MAA23908@stephens.ml.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Feb 1999 09:36:50 %2B1000." <19990216233650.3679.qmail@alpha.comkey.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Black wrote: >> >Regarding the other options, I am aware of pdksh and bash, but both are >> >somewhat non-standard (especially bash). > >I'm curious about this -- in what way is bash "non-standard"? The differences between bash and the standard UNIX shell (the Korn shell) are listed in the bash FAQ (ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/pub/bash/FAQ). Essentially, bash is an enhanced replacement for the Bourne shell (the old standard UNIX shell) and, like the current UNIX shell, is (or at least aims to be) a superset of the POSIX 1003.2 standard. Unfortinately, though many Korn-shell-like features are provided by bash, they are sometimes different and incompatible. bash also lacks some language and other features of ksh-93 (though this can also be said of pdksh, which is closer to ksh-88 than to ksh-93). Thomas Stephens tas@stephens.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199902171209.MAA23908>