Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!bu-cs!att!cbnews!res
From: res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: ln ksh /bin/sh (was: second disk partitions on UNIXPC)
Message-ID: <12086@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Dec 89 19:36:01 GMT
References: <1717@mtunb.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: res@cbnews.ATT.COM (Robert E. Stampfli,55216,cb,1C315,6148604268)
Distribution: unix-pc
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 25

In article <1717@mtunb.ATT.COM> jcm@mtunb.UUCP (John McMillan) writes:
>
>1) Replacing SH with KSH is a serious breach of sanity.
>	KSH is ALMOST a superset of SH -- but the differences are VERY
>	REAL.  It can waste hours or days for support people when folks
>	play this game.

With all due respect for John McMillan and his useful postings, I must admit
to having made ksh my standard /bin/sh years ago and, so far as I can tell,
have experienced only one bad side effect:  the % expansion to filename in
vi broke.  I heard rumors that spell and lint would break, but I did not
experience this.

The only thing that consistently bites me is that I use the "set -o nounset"
option on my account, and this blows many scripts out of the water.  I do
have access to the ksh sources, so I use a ksh compiled from these, and not
the one that came with the distribution disks.

If anyone actually has an example of ksh breaking a command, etc, I would
really like to hear about it.  Please send me the particulars so I can try
it on my system.

-- 
Rob Stampfli	/ att.com!stampfli (uucp@work) / kd8wk@w8cqk (packet radio)
614-864-9377	/ osu-cis.cis.ohio-state.edu!kd8wk!res (uucp@home)