[colug-432] ksh (Re: Why Bourne Shell Compatible: Portability)

[Jeff Frontz]

bash is horrifyingly incompatible with ksh.  It's why I loath bash --
I continually try to use my "muscle memory" ksh-isms without looking
what I'm doing and end up with lots and lots of bash gibberish.  It's
horrifying, horrifying I say!

pdksh is only slightly better; it's only good when you can't run an
actual ksh for some reason-- and there's really not a very good reason
as you can download it (and the source) for free.

Visit http://www.kornshell.com/  for all your Korn shell needs.


Jeff


On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Rob Funk <rfunk at funknet.net> wrote:
>
> The actual Bourne shell doesn't even exist on any non-commercial Unix/Linux,
> since it's AT&T code. The closest we get is ash or dash, which were intended
> to be basic Bourne-compatible shells with no extra bells and whistles.
>
> bash is the "Bourne-Again Shell", originally designed by the GNU people to be
> compatible with the original Bourne shell, but extend it. I think bash may
> also try to be compatible with the Korn Shell (also AT&T code, though there's
> a "pdksh" clone, and also intended to be Bourne-compatible).
>