Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!oliveb!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution?
Keywords: csh==Berkeley shell, should it be in System V or not?
Message-ID: <53764@sun.uucp>
Date: 18 May 88 23:45:57 GMT
References: <2599@usceast.UUCP> <2601@usceast.UUCP> <4402@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 30

> I think sh, csh and ksh should be standard .
> 	(okay - you could rename ksh to sh)

Well, no, you really can't, not always.  There are supposedly a few real live
incompatibilities that may break some scripts.

> I also think the new make, awk, and pic/ditroff should be standard.
> What else? - maybe plot(5).
> And the -mm, -ms and -me macro package while we are at it.
> 
> If these programs Are standard -  forgive my ignorance. We don't have any
> V.3 systems here.

The only ones that are standard with S5R3 are: "sh" (obviously), "the new
make" if this refers to the S5 "make" (neither "nmake" nor "mk" are part of
S5R3), and the "plot" stuff (PLOT(5) describes the format - AT&T calls this man
page PLOT(4); according to the S5R3 man pages, the "plot" command is there,
under the name of "tplot", and the "plot" library is there, but it supports
fewer devices than 4.3BSD does).

The new "awk" is standard with S5R3.1.  *None* of the formatting stuff is
standard with S5R3 of any flavor; this includes "ditroff", "pic", and all the
aforementioned macro packages.  It's all part of DWB, which provides "-mm" but
neither "-ms" nor "-me".

Of course, just because AT&T doesn't make something standard with *their*
releases doesn't mean everybody else is obliged to unbundle it.  They can
bundle it, as long as they pay AT&T all the requisite licensing fees for all
the code in question (DWB requires a separate license, as does "ksh"; "csh" and
"-me" don't, and I guess "-ms" doesn't because it's covered by your base UNIX
license, having been a part of older AT&T releases).