Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:6867 comp.unix.wizards:8253
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!gamma!ulysses!terminus!rolls!mtuxo!mtgzz!avr
From: avr@mtgzz.UUCP (XMRP50000[jcm]-a.v.reed)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: KSH portability
Message-ID: <4063@mtgzz.UUCP>
Date: 4 May 88 15:02:43 GMT
References: <295@cmtl01.UUCP> <12142@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <631@vsi.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ
Lines: 16
Summary: What is this opinion based on?

In article <631@vsi.UUCP>, friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) writes:
> 
> Note that porting ksh is not at all a task for the novice; it is
> not (to put it politely) "maximally portable".

What experience is that comment based on? My personal toolkit is
based on ksh, and so I've brought ksh to every UNIX box I've worked
on. It was NEVER more than one day's work; in most cases a simple
make is enough to bring it up and have it work to the man page. Once,
I've put it on a one-of-a-kind laboratory box with a very hybrid but
mostly SVID-conforming system. After cpio'ing it in, I just typed
make and got a working executable that performed flawlessly for over
two years. In my book, ksh is THE paradigm of maximum portability.
Either you have had an experience you ought to tell us more about, or
you owe Dave Korn a public apology.

				Adam Reed (mtgzz!avr)