Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site amdahl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!amdahl!gam
From: gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.unix
Subject: Re: ksh availability
Message-ID: <1284@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 16:20:47 EST
Article-I.D.: amdahl.1284
Posted: Fri Mar 15 16:20:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 01:17:24 EST
References: <10005@ulysses.UUCP> <15757@mgweed.UUCP> <9071@brl-tgr.ARPA> <333@ho95b.UUCP>
Organization: Blue Mouse Trailer Resort (sp #9), Hellmouth, CA
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.followup:4666 net.unix:3952

> Doug Gwyn asked:
> > Question:  Is ksh completely compatible with the SVR2 Bourne shell?
> > I seem to recall hearing that function definition was different..
> 
> No, the Sys V R2 Bourne-shell-upgrade is not compatible with ksh.
> Lots of things are different, and the ksh stuff is mostly better.
>
> 			Bill Stewart, ihnp4!ho95c!wcs

This is rather misleading and the author should explain exactly
what IS different about the ksh.  As far as I can tell, the only
difference in upward compatability is that ksh no longer supports
'^' as an alternate pipe symbol.

There are ksh aliases that impliment things like 'echo', 'false', 'pwd',
but these would be functionally identical to what the sh user would
expect. Functions from sh are compatable as well.

[ Yes, we actually have ksh here; I am only just starting to use
it myself ]

I would like to see more experience-derived info about the ksh
for the many beginners like myself.
-- 
Gordon A. Moffett		...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam