In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Fundakowski
Feldman wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Martin Cracauer wrote:
>
> > > I still think we should *seriously* consider switching to pdksh.
> >
> > As I said before, pdksh has other bugs.
>
> > Also we would loose all the PRs we received in the past. This testing
> > effort by our user base is a valuable resource. From the tests I ran
> > on all available shells, only bash2 is considerably better than the
> > other shells, pdksh has other bugs than our ash, not less.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahahahaha *cough, HACK, wheeze*.
> Ahem. Heh, bash2 considerably better. *continues ROFL*
Over the last year, I did an extensive amount of testinging on bourne
shell behaviour. bash2 was the only free sh clone that I never had to
complain over.
Is there something substantially you'd like to contribute to the
discussion, like - say - an example where bash-2.03 doesn't work well?
If your experience is based on old bash1 stuff, forget it. bash got
improved greatly since it is used as the standard shell for a UNIX
clone in wide use. Just like our shell improved from the beatings it
got because it has been the standard script-executing shell on FreeBSD
and NetBSD for (together) > 10 years now.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cons.org/cracauer/
Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
