Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "himsef".
Did you mean:
himself
2015 Apr 24
2
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
...ter
scripting ability (eg typescript options bash has never seen).
Many Solaris provided scripts were ksh.
Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't
give people copies of the shell to take home.
(Finally, too late in the day, they changed their licensing).
--
rgds
Stephen
2015 Apr 24
4
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
...Schilling wrote:
> Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote:
>
> > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
> > licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
> > course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't
> > give people copies of the shell to take home.
>
> AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997. Since
In 1998 each user had to sign a license; you couldn't give away copies
to other people.
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:09:30...
2015 Apr 24
0
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote:
> Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of ksh88
> licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh scripting
> course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I couldn't
> give people copies of the shell to take home.
AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997. Since
2001, ksh is under a OSI approved license.
J?rg
--
EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin...
2015 Apr 24
0
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
...t;> Stephen Harris <lists at spuddy.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Bash was bigger than ksh in the non-commercial Unix world because of
>> > ksh88 licensing problems. Back in 1998 I wanted to teach a ksh
scripting
>> > course to my local LUG, but AT&T (David Korn himsef!) told me I
>> > couldn't give people copies of the shell to take home.
>>
>> AFAIR, ksh was OSS (but not using an OSI approved license) since 1997.
>> Since
>
> In 1998 each user had to sign a license; you couldn't give away copies
> to other people.
>...
2015 Apr 24
3
Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
It was the mid/late-90s, but I seem to recall Bourne being the default
shell, although sh/ksh/csh were all available with a typical install.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Scott Robbins <scottro at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:02:56AM -0400, mark wrote:
> > On 04/24/15 06:57, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> > >
> > >On 04/24/15 06:07, E.B. wrote: