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. > > I like that wording. Unless I missed a post or two, I believe it is accurate to what has been stated here and my own understanding from elsewhere (re: /bin/sh).
Rainer
