Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cwns1!chet From: chet@cwns1.CWRU.EDU (Chet Ramey) Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell Subject: Re: ksh 11/16/88e now available in AT&T Toolchest Message-ID: <1990Oct3.140828.8051@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> Date: 3 Oct 90 14:08:28 GMT References: <1990Sep28.205053.16456@cbnews.att.com> Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Reply-To: chet@po.CWRU.Edu Organization: Case Western Reserve Univ. Cleveland, Ohio, (USA) Lines: 40 In article aps@tut.fi (Suntioinen Ari) writes: >=> 2) The ksh is a miserable piece of junk, when compared to the >=> GNU superset shell, BASH (which supports ksh-like vi-type >=> editing, and built-in help, among other things). GNU is free, >=> with modifiable source; ksh costs money. > >BASH is great, it dumps core and has clear documentation. Well, I guess you're entitled to a full refund. Korn first released ksh in 1982. Bash has had a year. Give us time to catch up. As to documentation, FTP to cwns1.ins.cwru.edu (129.22.8.43) for a very detailed bash manual page. It's in pub/bash/bash.1. There's also a Postscript version there in bash.PS. The next release of bash will have an `FSF-style' texinfo manual. I've proofed it; I know it exists. The next release of bash should also be much more stable. Brian is in the process of merging two slightly divergent versions -- his and mine. I run mine here as sh on several machines (all 4.3 BSD, but then that's what we've got...), and haven't had a version that wasn't in the middle of some development cycle dump core in months. I would expect the merged version to be just as reliable. (By the way, I don't mind Larry posting ksh announcements here. In fact, I'd like him to post a list of changes between 88d and 88e, if he would. I'm always looking for reasonable ksh features to incorporate into bash.) Chet -- Chet Ramey ``Levi Stubbs' tears run down Network Services Group his face...'' Case Western Reserve University chet@ins.CWRU.Edu