running scripts within the current c-shell
JD Runyan
Jason.Runyan at nitckc.usda.gov
Mon Feb 25 15:46:05 CST 2002
It is hard to make the argument either way. Most of the commercial
vendors ship with ksh as the default. I worked with a guy who was
100% AIX, and he would swear up and down that nothing compared to
ksh, even when I showed him that bash could do the same thing, and
often the same way. KSH is a good shell, but it is supported by
one organization. PDKSH copies the functionality, but I wouldn't
count on that continuing as Commercial UNIX becomes more linux like.
That is the best argument I would give.
On Sat, Feb , at 05:49:11PM -0600, Kendric Beachey wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 February 2002 16:43, Mike Coleman wrote:
> > Bob Batson <rcb at kc.rr.com> writes:
> > > How's bash better than tcsh?
> [many reasons enumerated]
>
> OK, how about this: I was trying to explain to a friend why bash is better
> than ksh. But, not having any "real" experience with ksh, I didn't have a
> lot of real zingers. What would you guys point out?
> --
> Kendric Beachey
>
--
JD Runyan
Mid-Range Systems Administrator
USDA NITC Kansas City
More information about the Kclug
mailing list