home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!caen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!serval!phys1.physics.wsu.edu!hlu
- From: hlu@phys1.physics.wsu.edu (Hongjiu Lu)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
- Subject: Re: ksh for Linux & olwm for X (do they exist?)
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.194710.20345@serval.net.wsu.edu>
- Date: 28 Jul 92 19:47:10 GMT
- References: <1992Jul28.020712.16700@athena.mit.edu> <1992Jul28.043659.6215@news.columbia.edu> <1992Jul28.144104.21938@crd.ge.com>
- Sender: news@serval.net.wsu.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: Washington State University
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <1992Jul28.144104.21938@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes:
- |> In article <1992Jul28.043659.6215@news.columbia.edu>, jml12@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jonathan M Lennox) writes:
- |>
- |> | Bash ought to be a superset of ksh--is there something in ksh that's
- |> | missing in bash? Or do you just feel that bash is too bloated?
- |>
- |> No, bash is not a superset of ksh, although many features are similar.
- |> Neither the user interface or the programming interface are identical or
- |> a subset. I'm constantly trying to use ksh stuff on bash and finding out
- |> that it isn't there or works a little differently.
- |>
- |> That's not a criticism of bash, just a factualy note. Bash is a nice
- |> enough shell, but it does things in its own way.
- |>
- |> If I get the chance after the Olympics are over I may try to compile
- |> real ksh on linux. As long as I do it on a work machine it's covered by
- |> the site license, so I can legally do that, although I can't share the
- |> binary.
- |> --
-
- Have you tried zsh?
-
- --
- H.J.
- Gcc/libc maintainer for Linux.
-