On 09/08/07, I. Szczesniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 8/8/07, Brandorr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > implement it. Without a decision from Ian or Marc we just waste time > > > in further heated arguments between the royal bourne shell > > > traditionalists from Sun and the pro-modernisation factions and > > > neither party has strong enough arguments to win. The worst case would > > > be that the status quo will be retained, leaving Indiana and > > > Opensolaris stuck with the old /bin/sh forever. > > > > > > Unless I am mistaken, a decision has been made to standardize on an updated > > ksh93 in Nevada. > > I do find the term 'updated' frightening given the tendency by Sun to > fork code. We have firsthand experience with significant engineering > problems where Solaris ports of our products require more development > time because Sun largely ignores standards like SUS or POSIX and > declares it's own API 'the standard'.
Considering Sun has POSIX and SUS certification, I would like to see some evidence to support your claims. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
