Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ulysses!hector!ekrell
From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: ksh (was Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution?)
Message-ID: <10301@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com>
Date: 19 May 88 20:01:08 GMT
References: <2599@usceast.UUCP> <2601@usceast.UUCP> <4402@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com> <53764@sun.uucp>
Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com
Reply-To: ekrell@hector (Eduardo Krell)
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 16
Keywords:

In article <53764@sun.uucp> guy@gorodish.UUCP writes:
>> 	(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.

We have renamed /bin/ksh to /bin/sh and the bourne shell to /bin/bsh (just
in case). We've been running this for a long time on Vaxen, Apollos, 3Bs,
Suns, etc. running BSD, System V and hybrids and/or derivatives thereof.

I've never seen any major problem. I've done this on my 3B2 (SVR3) and
a Counterpoint workstation (SVR3 + "BSD enhancements") and I have yet to find
any script that breaks.
    
    Eduardo Krell                   AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ

    UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell		ARPA: ekrell@ulysses.att.com