On 9/3/07, Brandorr <brandorr at opensolaris.org> wrote:
> 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?
Leave it as is.
William
--
_______ _,,-----------------.._ _______
`-.____`.-'" William Pursell "`-,'____,-'
`-.___\william.pursell72 at gmail.com/___,-'
`-._>-..___________________,,-<_,-'
