Comments on: Trying out ksh93 http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/ Glynn Foster . OpenSolaris . Ireland . GNOME . Climbing . New Zealand . Brewing . Blog Mon, 16 Aug 2010 06:26:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Roland Mainz http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/comment-page-1/#comment-123 Roland Mainz Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:12:27 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/#comment-123 > So globally I would tend to use ksh93 for scripting, and for interactive use > zsh if I can live with latin1 and bash otherwise. 1. Technically would disagree on the "use bash for non-latin1"-locales. "bash" has lots of horrible bugs when used for non-UTF-8 multibyte locales such as ja_JP.PCK or zh_CN.GB18030 - which was one of our main work to make sure ksh93 doesn't suffer from the same problems (as a result of that work ksh93 even allows to use multibyte characters for variable and function names... :-) ) 2. Small comment about testing: ksh93 comes with a large test suite which is _shipped_ even with Solaris by default to verify that the ksh93 binaries in the OS are working properly. AFAIK ksh93 is one of the most tested shells right now in Solaris (and based on my experience with "bash" I can't say the same for "bash" which appears to be build&&dumped on the users without testing... ;-(( ) ... > So globally I would tend to use ksh93 for scripting, and for interactive use
> zsh if I can live with latin1 and bash otherwise.

1. Technically would disagree on the “use bash for non-latin1″-locales. “bash” has lots of horrible bugs when used for non-UTF-8 multibyte locales such as ja_JP.PCK or zh_CN.GB18030 – which was one of our main work to make sure ksh93 doesn’t suffer from the same problems (as a result of that work ksh93 even allows to use multibyte characters for variable and function names… :-) )

2. Small comment about testing: ksh93 comes with a large test suite which is _shipped_ even with Solaris by default to verify that the ksh93 binaries in the OS are working properly. AFAIK ksh93 is one of the most tested shells right now in Solaris (and based on my experience with “bash” I can’t say the same for “bash” which appears to be build&&dumped on the users without testing… ;-(( ) …

]]> By: Jakub Steiner http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/comment-page-1/#comment-122 Jakub Steiner Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:21:57 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/#comment-122 Love the 8) Love the 8)

]]> By: UX-admin http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/comment-page-1/#comment-121 UX-admin Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:18:03 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/#comment-121 bash has been made the default shell for new users?!?!?! We're SO SCREWED. Now the bash garbage scripts will proliferate, incompatibility will increase, and those Linux immigrants will never learn to program properly, or hear about tcsh. Wow. From bad to worse. Wow. bash has been made the default shell for new users?!?!?!

We’re SO SCREWED. Now the bash garbage scripts will proliferate, incompatibility will increase, and those Linux immigrants will never learn to program properly, or hear about tcsh.
Wow. From bad to worse. Wow.

]]> By: Marc http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/comment-page-1/#comment-120 Marc Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:17:33 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/#comment-120 It seems quite normal to me that different shells have different strong points. ksh93 is unbeatable on performance. zsh has the most "features" (though ksh93 has other ones) and the most advanced completion system but is slow and does not support utf-8 so well. Bash is probably the shell that got the most testing. So globally I would tend to use ksh93 for scripting, and for interactive use zsh if I can live with latin1 and bash otherwise. What I would not do is give up an interactive shell I am used to, it takes too much time getting used to anything new... It seems quite normal to me that different shells have different strong points. ksh93 is unbeatable on performance. zsh has the most “features” (though ksh93 has other ones) and the most advanced completion system but is slow and does not support utf-8 so well. Bash is probably the shell that got the most testing. So globally I would tend to use ksh93 for scripting, and for interactive use zsh if I can live with latin1 and bash otherwise. What I would not do is give up an interactive shell I am used to, it takes too much time getting used to anything new…

]]> By: Roland Mainz http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/comment-page-1/#comment-119 Roland Mainz Tue, 06 Nov 2007 06:10:29 +0000 http://blogs.gnome.org/gman/2007/11/06/trying-out-ksh93/#comment-119 1. Erm... the "more" stuff is coming later... it was obmitted because the current behaviour of "bash" causes problems for old terminals and we need to figure out how to make it better... 2. "clear sceen" is "", not something with . We used this based on accessibilty considerations since "clear" screen is a more destructive action and therefore warrants a two-key sequence that noone accidently ruins his/her terminal output. 3. The "akward" 4 spaces added when a filename/variable/etc. cannot be completed is a charatcer. That was done to allow people entering a without falling-back to (may be debateable but the more traditional Unix users seem to prefer this method...). 1. Erm… the “more” stuff is coming later… it was obmitted because the current behaviour of “bash” causes problems for old terminals and we need to figure out how to make it better…
2. “clear sceen” is “”, not something with . We used this based on accessibilty considerations since “clear” screen is a more destructive action and therefore warrants a two-key sequence that noone accidently ruins his/her terminal output.
3. The “akward” 4 spaces added when a filename/variable/etc. cannot be completed is a charatcer. That was done to allow people entering a without falling-back to (may be debateable but the more traditional Unix users seem to prefer this method…).

]]>