Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!steinmetz!ge-dab!ge-rtp!edison!rja
From: rja@edison.GE.COM (rja)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Should ``csh'' be part of the System V distribution?
Summary: ksh for me
Keywords: csh==Berkeley shell, should it be in System V or not?
Message-ID: <1525@edison.GE.COM>
Date: 18 May 88 11:42:24 GMT
References: <2599@usceast.UUCP> <2601@usceast.UUCP> <77@denali.stanford.edu> <1262@csun.UUCP>
Organization: GE-Fanuc North America
Lines: 27


> 
> I agree.  ksh is my shell of choice.  Anybody know how well it works on
> job-control systems?
> 
> >Chuck Karish		ARPA:	karish@denali.stanford.edu
> -- 

  I also would use ksh if I had a choice.  Since the system I'm using is 
running 4.2 BSD, I'm using csh instead of the (unimproved for a long time)
sh supplied on the system.  I especially like being able to tell ksh to use
emacs mode with the command line.  
  I've found job control with ksh to be as good or better than that with 
4.x BSD systems' csh.  I've only used ksh on AT&T 3Bx machines, but have been
especially pleased with layers running on a AT&T 5620 bit-mapped terminal
since it lets you have several windows into different jobs on one screen.
Also, the ksh I was using supported the fg and bg commands that csh has.
  Friends in grad school at U.Va. claim that some/all of the job control
commands are "extra cost options" that their systems don't have available.
I don't know myself first hand if that is true.
  I do think that ideally people would get to use their own shell, be it
vsh, dsh, sh, csh, ksh, or whatever fits the user....

______________________________________________________________________________
         rja@edison.GE.COM      or      ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja  
         
______________________________________________________________________________