From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16076 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2021 16:22:08 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 21 Dec 2021 16:22:08 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E4DC79CC07; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:22:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3238F9490D; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:21:47 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7A7FC9490D; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:21:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A0029461A for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:21:40 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id 9C3BA35E4D0; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:21:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:21:39 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Cyrille Lefevre Message-ID: <20211221162139.GP24180@mcvoy.com> References: <20201222224306.GA28478@minnie.tuhs.org> <202012230546.0BN5kDwe028815@sdf.org> <1653639b-8e41-7437-8c0e-32564dfdd788@laposte.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1653639b-8e41-7437-8c0e-32564dfdd788@laposte.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Subject: Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" I get the historical interest, but in today's world, is there any advantage to ksh over bash? I get that lots of scripts are run with /bin/sh and it is nice when that is fast, but aren't the cpus fast enough these days that it sort of doesn't matter? On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 02:55:55PM +0100, Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS wrote: > Hi, Here are some ksh versions... > > http://cyrillelefevre.free.fr/ksh/ > > ksh86a-toolchest.tar.bz2 314427 > ksh88c-hpux-9.10.tar.bz2 169413 > ksh88d-svr4.tar.bz2 132718 > ksh88f-i18n-irix-6.5.5.tar.bz2 160563 > ksh88f-irix-6.5.7.tar.bz2 215090 > ksh88g-sco-unixware7.tar.bz2 195282 > ksh88h-sco-unixware7.tar.bz2 147194 > ksh88i-solaris-2.5.tar.bz2 149477 > ksh88i-solaris-2.6.tar.bz2 159219 > ksh88i-solaris-2.7.tar.bz2 163976 > ksh88i-solaris-2.8.tar.bz2 164771 > ksh93e-sco-unixware7.tar.bz2 542380 > > Le 23/12/2020 ? 08:19, Efton Collins a ?crit?: > >here is a link to a ksh version that seems to predate ksh88, msg.c > >says "Version 06/03/86a": > >https://github.com/weiss/original-bsd/tree/master/local/toolchest/ksh > > > >I found the link at the bottom of this interesting page: > >https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shells/ksh_versions.html > > > >and this link contains a surprising amount of information on many > >shell versions released over the years - > >https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/shells > > > >On 12/22/20, Scot Jenkins via TUHS wrote: > >>Warren Toomey wrote: > >> > >>>Hi all, I received an e-mail looking for the ksh-88 source code. A quick > >>>search for it on-line doesn't reveal it. Does anybody have a copy? > >>https://archive.org/details/ATTUNIXSystemVRelease4Version2 > >>has source for several releases. > >> > >>click "show all" on the right under "download options", > >>the file sysvr4.tar.bz2 has source for ksh88: > >> > >>from cmd/ksh/sh/msg.c: > >>msg.c: MSG e_version = "\n@(#)Version M-11/16/88d\0\n"; > >> > >>I think this was for x86 PCs. I haven't tried to build it. > >>The date on the files is Jan 25 1993. > >> > >>scot > >> > > > -- > mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists@laposte.net > -- --- Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm