On 9/3/07, Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at sun.com> wrote: > Brandorr wrote: > > On 8/31/07, Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersmith at sun.com> wrote: > >> Brandorr wrote: > >>> A decision has been made to replace /bin/sh with a more > >>> modern/user-friendly default system shell. Ksh93 was chosen because it > >>> is fully backwards compatible with /bin/sh, is fully standards > >>> compliant, has all of the features you love about bash, and also > >>> happens to be the most powerful scripting shell available. > >> It's been discussed, but I don't think anyone can say it's decided yet > >> that's what will happen. > > > > How about???!!! > > > > ===Q: Why isn't bash the default system shell?=== > > A: Solaris uses the Bourne shell (/bin/sh) as the default system shell > > to satisfy backward compatibility with historic releases of Solaris. > > There is a consensus building to replace /bin/sh with a more > > modern/user-friendly default system shell. Ksh93 is currently the > > leading candidate because it is fully backwards compatible with > > /bin/sh, is fully standards compliant, has all of the features that > > you love about bash, and also happens to be the most powerful > > scripting shell available. > > Sure, though it's a bit heavy on pushing ksh93 as the one true shell.
Any suggested edits to tone it down? > > > I thought I read that ksh93 is going into ON... correct? > > Already in nv_72 - you can thank Roland for that. I do need to thank Roland, for sure. (And David Korn. I've noticed that he is active on the lists.) I made overly aggressive assumptions of intent. I thought ksh93 was going into O/N, so that it could replace/augment /bin/sh functionality for system scripts, and root login. (Again, I didn't read this, I just made an incorrect assumption. I think I need to go read the initial PSARC proposal.) -Brian > > -- > -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersmith at sun.com > Sun Microsystems, Inc. - X Window System Engineering > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
