Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 13:25:20 +0000 From: Dom Mitchell <dom@myrddin.demon.co.uk> To: obrien@NUXI.com Cc: Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Shells for you and shells for me Message-ID: <E0zZEYK-000047-00.qmail@myrddin.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: "David O'Brien"'s message of "Thu, 29 Oct 1998 01:26:21 -0800" References: <3633C8F8.EF8E14D5@null.net> <Pine.BSF.4.05.9810252016090.375-100000@picnic.mat.net> <19981026125133.A2717@netmonger.net> <19981029012621.A26396@nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0zZEYK-000047-00.qmail>