Re: Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling <Joerg.Schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephen Harris <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:32:45AM -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > Wasn't Solaris, which for awhile at least, was probably the most popular
> > Unix, using ksh by default?
>
> Solaris /bin/sh was a real real dumb version of the bourne shell.
> Solaris included /bin/ksh as part of the core distribution (ksh88 was a
> part of the SVr4 specification) and so many scripts were written with
> #!/bin/ksh at the start (including tools like "patchadd").

The basic system had very few scripts that required ksh.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@xxxxxxxxxx                    (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos