Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!virtech!cpcahil
From: cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: stupid ksh question
Keywords: Answer. thanks to those who replied
Message-ID: <1989Dec20.114755.9028@virtech.uucp>
Date: 20 Dec 89 11:47:55 GMT
References: <5037@quack.UUCP> <1989Dec19.205629.19713@mccc.uucp>
Organization: Virtual Technologies Inc.
Lines: 24

In article <1989Dec19.205629.19713@mccc.uucp>, pjh@mccc.uucp (Pete Holsberg) writes:
> In article <5037@quack.UUCP> mrapple@quack.UUCP (Nick Sayer) writes:
> =The answer to my question came from David Elliott:
> =
> =>ksh is a version of sh that has been heavily extended.  It has been
> =>around for 5 or 6 years, but has never been part of a released system
> =>until System V.4.  Most users of ksh either bought it from AT&T (at an
> =>exhorbitant price) or got a copy through some illicit means.
> =
> Or purchased a legal copy from Aspen Technology or other legitimate vendor.

It's also available in at least two vendors systems: HP-UX and Concurrent's
Xelos.

As I understand it, the "exhorbitant" price you pay the AT&T toolchest ($3,000)
is for a site license with source code.  Doesn't sound like a bad deal 
to me.


-- 
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Conor P. Cahill     uunet!virtech!cpcahil      	703-430-9247	!
| Virtual Technologies Inc.,    P. O. Box 876,   Sterling, VA 22170     |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+