The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
@ 2020-12-22 22:43 Warren Toomey
  2020-12-22 23:01 ` Clem Cole
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Warren Toomey @ 2020-12-22 22:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

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?

Cheers, Warren

Original e-mail:
   I recently built a PiDP11 and have been enjoying going back in time
   to 2.11BSD..  I was at UC Davis in the the early 1980's and we had
   a few PDP-11/70's running 2.8/2.9 BSD. Back then we reached out to
   David Korn and he sent us the source for KSH -- this would have been
   in 1985ish if I remember, and we compiled it for 2.9 & 4.1BSD, Xenix,
   and some other variants that used K&R C.  It may have been what was
   later called ksh88.  I wish I still had the files from then..

   I was wondering if you might know if there's an older version like this
   or one that's been ported for 2.11BSD?
   Many thanks,
   Joe

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-22 22:43 [TUHS] ksh88 source code? Warren Toomey
@ 2020-12-22 23:01 ` Clem Cole
  2020-12-23  1:29   ` John P. Linderman
  2020-12-23  3:30 ` Rico Pajarola
                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2020-12-22 23:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren Toomey; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2475 bytes --]

If you were outside of AT&T, it was distributed via AT&T Summit's
'toolchest' thingy (and were as a single license to join it and but
separate fees for each tool - if you wanted sub-license there was a
secondary process which I forget the details -- I remember used it so we
could make ksh, mk and ditroff standard on the MASSCOMP and later Stellar
boxes).

My memory is that the toolchest was created before SVR4, I want to say SVR2
(maybe as late as SVR3) timeframe.  Its origin is it was a way to get some
of the tools that came from different teams around the labs out without
having to including them in a full release. Earlier, Brian's ditroff and
Dennis's compiler were licensed (together) but using the original
licensing/distribution scheme.   As tools like ksh and mk came on the
scene, Otis Wilson asked a number of us customers what to do.      The
toolchest was born from that discussion.  It was cool in the after you
ordered, you go a uucp address to 'pull' the bits for your site from the
toolchest.  No tapes were written - which is why I think find things now
may be hard.

That said, I've not found a repository of the toolchest stuff as I'm not so
sure ATT really released all of it in the sense of the basic system
itself.  For instance, the support for the JERQ (including the games) were
all in the toolchest and last spring a few of us were looking for the GBACA
sources.  I'm not sure if they were found.

Basically, you need to find someone that had had a toolchest license for
that specific tool and still has the bits somewhere.

Clem

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:44 PM Warren Toomey <wkt@tuhs.org> 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?
>
> Cheers, Warren
>
> Original e-mail:
>    I recently built a PiDP11 and have been enjoying going back in time
>    to 2.11BSD..  I was at UC Davis in the the early 1980's and we had
>    a few PDP-11/70's running 2.8/2.9 BSD. Back then we reached out to
>    David Korn and he sent us the source for KSH -- this would have been
>    in 1985ish if I remember, and we compiled it for 2.9 & 4.1BSD, Xenix,
>    and some other variants that used K&R C.  It may have been what was
>    later called ksh88.  I wish I still had the files from then..
>
>    I was wondering if you might know if there's an older version like this
>    or one that's been ported for 2.11BSD?
>    Many thanks,
>    Joe
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3647 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-22 23:01 ` Clem Cole
@ 2020-12-23  1:29   ` John P. Linderman
  2020-12-23 22:57     ` Warren Toomey
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: John P. Linderman @ 2020-12-23  1:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2699 bytes --]

Does it have to be ksh88? https://github.com/att/ast has ksh93 source. --
jpl

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 6:03 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

> If you were outside of AT&T, it was distributed via AT&T Summit's
> 'toolchest' thingy (and were as a single license to join it and but
> separate fees for each tool - if you wanted sub-license there was a
> secondary process which I forget the details -- I remember used it so we
> could make ksh, mk and ditroff standard on the MASSCOMP and later Stellar
> boxes).
>
> My memory is that the toolchest was created before SVR4, I want to say
> SVR2 (maybe as late as SVR3) timeframe.  Its origin is it was a way to get
> some of the tools that came from different teams around the labs out
> without having to including them in a full release. Earlier, Brian's
> ditroff and Dennis's compiler were licensed (together) but using the
> original licensing/distribution scheme.   As tools like ksh and mk came on
> the scene, Otis Wilson asked a number of us customers what to do.      The
> toolchest was born from that discussion.  It was cool in the after you
> ordered, you go a uucp address to 'pull' the bits for your site from the
> toolchest.  No tapes were written - which is why I think find things now
> may be hard.
>
> That said, I've not found a repository of the toolchest stuff as I'm not
> so sure ATT really released all of it in the sense of the basic system
> itself.  For instance, the support for the JERQ (including the games) were
> all in the toolchest and last spring a few of us were looking for the GBACA
> sources.  I'm not sure if they were found.
>
> Basically, you need to find someone that had had a toolchest license for
> that specific tool and still has the bits somewhere.
>
> Clem
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 5:44 PM Warren Toomey <wkt@tuhs.org> 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?
>>
>> Cheers, Warren
>>
>> Original e-mail:
>>    I recently built a PiDP11 and have been enjoying going back in time
>>    to 2.11BSD..  I was at UC Davis in the the early 1980's and we had
>>    a few PDP-11/70's running 2.8/2.9 BSD. Back then we reached out to
>>    David Korn and he sent us the source for KSH -- this would have been
>>    in 1985ish if I remember, and we compiled it for 2.9 & 4.1BSD, Xenix,
>>    and some other variants that used K&R C.  It may have been what was
>>    later called ksh88.  I wish I still had the files from then..
>>
>>    I was wondering if you might know if there's an older version like this
>>    or one that's been ported for 2.11BSD?
>>    Many thanks,
>>    Joe
>>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4180 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-22 22:43 [TUHS] ksh88 source code? Warren Toomey
  2020-12-22 23:01 ` Clem Cole
@ 2020-12-23  3:30 ` Rico Pajarola
  2020-12-23  9:03   ` Thomas Paulsen
  2020-12-23  5:46 ` Scot Jenkins via TUHS
  2020-12-23  6:56 ` [TUHS] ksh88 source code? arnold
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Rico Pajarola @ 2020-12-23  3:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren Toomey; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1137 bytes --]

there's a plain ksh88 in here:
bitsavers/bits/HP/HP_9000/HPUX_9/9.10_S300_Source_Product.cpio.gz

The open sourced Solaris 8 tarball contains ksh88i

I'm sure there's more ;)

But what a shame that the 1985ish ksh got lost.


On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:44 PM Warren Toomey <wkt@tuhs.org> 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?
>
> Cheers, Warren
>
> Original e-mail:
>    I recently built a PiDP11 and have been enjoying going back in time
>    to 2.11BSD..  I was at UC Davis in the the early 1980's and we had
>    a few PDP-11/70's running 2.8/2.9 BSD. Back then we reached out to
>    David Korn and he sent us the source for KSH -- this would have been
>    in 1985ish if I remember, and we compiled it for 2.9 & 4.1BSD, Xenix,
>    and some other variants that used K&R C.  It may have been what was
>    later called ksh88.  I wish I still had the files from then..
>
>    I was wondering if you might know if there's an older version like this
>    or one that's been ported for 2.11BSD?
>    Many thanks,
>    Joe
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1629 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-22 22:43 [TUHS] ksh88 source code? Warren Toomey
  2020-12-22 23:01 ` Clem Cole
  2020-12-23  3:30 ` Rico Pajarola
@ 2020-12-23  5:46 ` Scot Jenkins via TUHS
  2020-12-23  7:19   ` Efton Collins
  2020-12-23  6:56 ` [TUHS] ksh88 source code? arnold
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Scot Jenkins via TUHS @ 2020-12-23  5:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: wkt, tuhs

Warren Toomey <wkt@tuhs.org> 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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-22 22:43 [TUHS] ksh88 source code? Warren Toomey
                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2020-12-23  5:46 ` Scot Jenkins via TUHS
@ 2020-12-23  6:56 ` arnold
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: arnold @ 2020-12-23  6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: wkt, tuhs

I have ksh88f that I got from the Toolchest. My files are dated
April 6, 1991.

If anyone wants it, please let me know.

Arnold

Warren Toomey <wkt@tuhs.org> 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?
>
> Cheers, Warren
>
> Original e-mail:
>    I recently built a PiDP11 and have been enjoying going back in time
>    to 2.11BSD..  I was at UC Davis in the the early 1980's and we had
>    a few PDP-11/70's running 2.8/2.9 BSD. Back then we reached out to
>    David Korn and he sent us the source for KSH -- this would have been
>    in 1985ish if I remember, and we compiled it for 2.9 & 4.1BSD, Xenix,
>    and some other variants that used K&R C.  It may have been what was
>    later called ksh88.  I wish I still had the files from then..
>
>    I was wondering if you might know if there's an older version like this
>    or one that's been ported for 2.11BSD?
>    Many thanks,
>    Joe

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-23  5:46 ` Scot Jenkins via TUHS
@ 2020-12-23  7:19   ` Efton Collins
  2021-12-21 13:55     ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Efton Collins @ 2020-12-23  7:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Scot Jenkins; +Cc: tuhs

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 <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
> Warren Toomey <wkt@tuhs.org> 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
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-23  3:30 ` Rico Pajarola
@ 2020-12-23  9:03   ` Thomas Paulsen
  2020-12-23  9:14     ` Rico Pajarola
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Paulsen @ 2020-12-23  9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rico Pajarola; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 1420 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-23  9:03   ` Thomas Paulsen
@ 2020-12-23  9:14     ` Rico Pajarola
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Rico Pajarola @ 2020-12-23  9:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Thomas Paulsen; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 518 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 1:03 AM Thomas Paulsen <thomas.paulsen@firemail.de>
wrote:

> you mean:­
> http://www.bitsavers.org/bits/HP/HP_9000/HPUX_9/9.10_S300_Source_Product.cpio.gz

yes

copy paste is hard ;)

> there's a plain ksh88 in here:
> bitsavers/bits/HP/HP_9000/HPUX_9/9.10_S300_Source_Product.cpio.gz
>
> The open sourced Solaris 8 tarball contains ksh88i
>
> I'm sure there's more ;)
>
> But what a shame that the 1985ish ksh got lost.
>
>
>
>
> *Gesendet mit Firemail.de - Freemail*

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2119 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-23  1:29   ` John P. Linderman
@ 2020-12-23 22:57     ` Warren Toomey
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Warren Toomey @ 2020-12-23 22:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John P. Linderman; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 08:29:49PM -0500, John P. Linderman wrote:
>    Does it have to be ksh88? [1]https://github.com/att/ast has ksh93
>    source. -- jpl

I think the original poster couldn't get ksh93 to compile on 2.11BSD.
Thanks though, Warren

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2020-12-23  7:19   ` Efton Collins
@ 2021-12-21 13:55     ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  2021-12-21 16:21       ` Larry McVoy
  2021-12-23 13:39       ` [TUHS] Bourne shell source code (was Re: ksh88 source code?) Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS @ 2021-12-21 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

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 à 08:19, Efton Collins a écrit :
> 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 <tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
>> Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> 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



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 13:55     ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
@ 2021-12-21 16:21       ` Larry McVoy
  2021-12-21 16:27         ` Warner Losh
                           ` (2 more replies)
  2021-12-23 13:39       ` [TUHS] Bourne shell source code (was Re: ksh88 source code?) Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  1 sibling, 3 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2021-12-21 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Cyrille Lefevre; +Cc: 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 <tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
> >>Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> 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 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 16:21       ` Larry McVoy
@ 2021-12-21 16:27         ` Warner Losh
  2021-12-21 17:15           ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  2021-12-21 16:42         ` John Cowan
  2021-12-21 22:15         ` Thomas Paulsen
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2021-12-21 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2430 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021, 10:22 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:

> 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?
>

Bash is GPLd. Ksh isn't. :)

Warner

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 <tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
> > >>Warren Toomey <wkt at tuhs.org> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4555 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 16:21       ` Larry McVoy
  2021-12-21 16:27         ` Warner Losh
@ 2021-12-21 16:42         ` John Cowan
  2021-12-21 16:47           ` Chet Ramey
  2021-12-22 11:11           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  2021-12-21 22:15         ` Thomas Paulsen
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: John Cowan @ 2021-12-21 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 970 bytes --]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:22 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:

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?
>

Ubuntu chose it as the default shell for sysvinit startup scripts in 2006
(from which it spread to BSD) precisely because it was much faster than
bash.  It's also smaller: bash is a memory hog.

When I wrote a whole (batch) application in about 120 Perl and shell
scripts in 1999-2001, I often needed multiple shell scripts running
simultaneously, sometimes for concurrency and sometimes just from scripts
calling other scripts.  So I made sure everything ran under Solaris sh,
which was a modified Bourne shell at that time and so was much lighter than
bash, which I used for development.   Nowadays I'd use dash in the same
circumstances.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1772 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 16:42         ` John Cowan
@ 2021-12-21 16:47           ` Chet Ramey
  2021-12-21 17:09             ` John Cowan
  2021-12-22 11:11           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Chet Ramey @ 2021-12-21 16:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Cowan, Larry McVoy; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On 12/21/21 11:42 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:22 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com
> <mailto:lm@mcvoy.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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?
> 
> 
> Ubuntu chose it as the default shell for sysvinit startup scripts in 2006
> (from which it spread to BSD) precisely because it was much faster than
> bash.  It's also smaller: bash is a memory hog. 

You're talking about dash, I think.

-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 16:47           ` Chet Ramey
@ 2021-12-21 17:09             ` John Cowan
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: John Cowan @ 2021-12-21 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Chester Ramey; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1074 bytes --]

Yes, sorry: I edited the posting heavily and I missed that some pronouns
now had the wrong antecedent.

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:47 AM Chet Ramey <chet.ramey@case.edu> wrote:

> On 12/21/21 11:42 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:22 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com
> > <mailto:lm@mcvoy.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     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?
> >
> >
> > Ubuntu chose it as the default shell for sysvinit startup scripts in 2006
> > (from which it spread to BSD) precisely because it was much faster than
> > bash.  It's also smaller: bash is a memory hog.
>
> You're talking about dash, I think.
>
> --
> ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
>                  ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
> Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1870 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 16:27         ` Warner Losh
@ 2021-12-21 17:15           ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  2021-12-21 17:31             ` Boyd Lynn Gerber
  2021-12-22  6:23             ` jason-tuhs
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor via TUHS @ 2021-12-21 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 386 bytes --]

On 12/21/21 9:27 AM, Warner Losh wrote:
> Bash is GPLd. Ksh isn't. :)

At the risk of showing my ignorance....

What is the effective difference between GPLed software; Bash, vs 
non-GPLed software; Ksh?

Why, as a lay user, would I care?

I mostly care that I am allowed to use it by some license so that I'm 
not pirating software.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4017 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 17:15           ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
@ 2021-12-21 17:31             ` Boyd Lynn Gerber
  2021-12-21 19:09               ` Richard Salz
  2021-12-22  6:23             ` jason-tuhs
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Boyd Lynn Gerber @ 2021-12-21 17:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Grant Taylor; +Cc: tuhs

I have moved to mksh

http://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm

mksh(1) R59c

This is the website of the MirBSD™ Korn Shell, an actively developed 
free implementation of the Korn Shell programming language and a 
successor to the Public Domain Korn Shell (pdksh).

Regards,

-- 
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com> 801 849-0213
ZENEZ   1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah  84047


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 17:31             ` Boyd Lynn Gerber
@ 2021-12-21 19:09               ` Richard Salz
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Richard Salz @ 2021-12-21 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Boyd Lynn Gerber; +Cc: TUHS main list, Grant Taylor

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 127 bytes --]

> I have moved to mksh
> http://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm
>

I use http://nadvsh.sourceforge.net/  when I don't use the rc port.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 479 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 16:21       ` Larry McVoy
  2021-12-21 16:27         ` Warner Losh
  2021-12-21 16:42         ` John Cowan
@ 2021-12-21 22:15         ` Thomas Paulsen
  2021-12-22  7:44           ` arnold
  2021-12-22 14:35           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Paulsen @ 2021-12-21 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: tuhs

First of all, there is a big difference between ksh88 and ksh94. The  latter is closer to bash, but it's ancient software. bash is clearly more advanced. ksh is retro computing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 17:15           ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  2021-12-21 17:31             ` Boyd Lynn Gerber
@ 2021-12-22  6:23             ` jason-tuhs
  2021-12-24 22:51               ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: jason-tuhs @ 2021-12-22  6:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: TUHS main list


>> Bash is GPLd. Ksh isn't. :)

> What is the effective difference between GPLed software; Bash, vs 
> non-GPLed software; Ksh?
>
> Why, as a lay user, would I care?

As an end user, you would not care.

As a vendor or distributor, you would care.  Anyone doing an OS or other 
software distribution (think the BSDs, of course; but also think Apple or 
Microsoft) needs to care.  Anyone selling a hardware device with embedded 
software (think switches/routers; think IOT devices; think consumer 
devices like DVRs; etc) needs to care.  GPL (or similar "virally" 
licensed) software carries legal implications for anyone selling or 
distributing products that contain such software; and this can be a 
motivation to use software with less-restrictive license terms.


> I get the historical interest, but in today's world, is there any 
> advantage to ksh over bash?

I'm aware of a few random features that are in ksh93 but not other shells 
(random, trivial, example that I saw just today*: "printf %(FORMAT)T"). 
That said, my first impulse would have been to say no, there aren't any 
meaningful (technical) advantages to ksh over bash -- except that it seems 
there's still some amount of active development going on in ksh:

https://github.com/att/ast/issues/1466

So I guess, for some people at least, there are indeed reasons to prefer 
it, including (according to users in those github issues) performance.


On the licensing front, the GPL is an issue for bash; but zsh is available 
as a more modern, fully-featured shell that avoids any GPL issues.  This 
is why Apple switched the default shell in OSX from bash to zsh: they 
wanted to avoid the GPLv3.  Previously, they had been shipping the last 
GPLv2 version of bash, which was from 2006.  According to this blog, 
they've been avoiding any GPLv3 code and actively working to remove even 
GPLv2 code in OSX for quite a while:

http://meta.ath0.com/2012/02/05/apples-great-gpl-purge/


  -Jason


* bash seems to recognize %(FORMAT)T, but only takes epoch seconds as an 
argument.  ksh93 takes anything vaguely date-like.  zsh and pdksh don't 
recognize it at all.

 	for S in ksh93 pdksh bash zsh ; do echo "===> ${S} <===" ; eval "${S} -c 'printf \"%(%F)T\n\" \"last thursday\"'" ; echo "" ; done

 	===> ksh93 <===
 	2021-12-16

 	===> pdksh <===
 	printf: illegal format character (

 	===> bash <===
 	bash: line 1: printf: last thursday: invalid number
 	1969-12-31

 	===> zsh <===
 	zsh:printf:1: %(: invalid directive


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 22:15         ` Thomas Paulsen
@ 2021-12-22  7:44           ` arnold
  2021-12-22 14:35           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: arnold @ 2021-12-22  7:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: thomas.paulsen, lm; +Cc: tuhs

"Thomas Paulsen" <thomas.paulsen@firemail.de> wrote:

> ksh is retro computing.

Ksh is still being worked on,just not by David Korn. See
https://github.com/ksh93/ksh

Arnold

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 16:42         ` John Cowan
  2021-12-21 16:47           ` Chet Ramey
@ 2021-12-22 11:11           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS @ 2021-12-22 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

Le 21/12/2021 à 17:42, John Cowan a écrit :
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:22 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com 
> <mailto:lm@mcvoy.com>> wrote:
> 
>     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?
> 
> Ubuntu chose it as the default shell for sysvinit startup scripts in 
> 2006 (from which it spread to BSD) precisely because it was much faster 
> than bash.  It's also smaller: bash is a memory hog.

it seems bash4 have solved the performance penalty :

https://github.com/ksh-community/shbench/blob/master/bench/gsub.ksh

/me
-- 
mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists@laposte.net


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-21 22:15         ` Thomas Paulsen
  2021-12-22  7:44           ` arnold
@ 2021-12-22 14:35           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  2021-12-22 14:36             ` Chet Ramey
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS @ 2021-12-22 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

Le 21/12/2021 à 23:15, Thomas Paulsen a écrit :
> First of all, there is a big difference between ksh88 and ksh94. The  latter is closer to bash, but it's ancient software. bash is clearly more advanced. ksh is retro computing.

s/94/93/

ksh93 was more advanced than bash for years...
regarding https://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/bashver4.html, ksh93 is just 
missing mapfile and some features like ${x^}, ${x,}, '\uXXX', others 
things were implemented for years...
in fact, bash4 implements man ksh93 :-)

/me
-- 
mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists@laposte.net


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-22 14:35           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
@ 2021-12-22 14:36             ` Chet Ramey
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Chet Ramey @ 2021-12-22 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Cyrille Lefevre, tuhs

On 12/22/21 9:35 AM, Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS wrote:

> in fact, bash4 implements man ksh93 :-)

Well, that's not true.


-- 
``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer
		 ``Ars longa, vita brevis'' - Hippocrates
Chet Ramey, UTech, CWRU    chet@case.edu    http://tiswww.cwru.edu/~chet/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Bourne shell source code (was Re:  ksh88 source code?)
  2021-12-21 13:55     ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  2021-12-21 16:21       ` Larry McVoy
@ 2021-12-23 13:39       ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS @ 2021-12-23 13:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

Le 21/12/2021 à 14:55, Cyrille Lefevre a écrit :
> 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-irix-6.5.5f.tar.bz2 160563
> ksh88f-irix-6.5.5m.tar.bz2 160563
> ksh88f-irix-6.5.7m.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

added :

dclemans_ksh-0.3.tar.Z 162394
ksh93u-apple.tar.bz2 4545249

and some bourne shell versions...

http://cyrillelefevre.free.fr/sh/

sh5-ultrix-4.3-bsd.tar.bz2 41341
sh-aix-4.1.3.tar.bz2 61194
sh-bsd-4.4-lite2+1hour.tar.bz2 50660
sh-dec-osf1-1.0.tar.bz2 58670
sh-dec-osf1-2.0.tar.bz2 58691
sh-hpux-9.10.tar.bz2 52270
sh-irix-3.7.tar.bz2 61028
sh-irix-6.5.5f.tar.bz2 60260
sh-irix-6.5.5m.tar.bz2 60295
sh-irix-6.5.7m.tar.bz2 60220
sh-opensolaris-b147.tar.bz2 53857
sh-sco-unixware7.tar.bz2 55594
sh-sco-unixware7-osr.tar.bz2 50062
sh-solaris-2.6.tar.bz2 51006
sh-solaris-2.8.tar.bz2 53597
sh-sunos-4.1.4.tar.bz2 39230
sh-svr4.tar.bz2 47766
sh-ultrix-4.3-bsd.tar.bz2 28799
sh-ultrix-osf1-1.0.tar.bz2 56072
sh-usl-4.2.tar.bz2 54212

Regards,

/me
-- 
mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists@laposte.net


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-22  6:23             ` jason-tuhs
@ 2021-12-24 22:51               ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  2021-12-24 23:15                 ` Richard Salz
  2021-12-24 23:34                 ` Michael Huff
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor via TUHS @ 2021-12-24 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3171 bytes --]

On 12/21/21 11:23 PM, jason-tuhs@shalott.net wrote:
> As an end user, you would not care.

That tends to explain why I've not personally cared.

> As a vendor or distributor, you would care.  Anyone doing an OS or other 
> software distribution (think the BSDs, of course; but also think Apple 
> or Microsoft) needs to care.  Anyone selling a hardware device with 
> embedded software (think switches/routers; think IOT devices; think 
> consumer devices like DVRs; etc) needs to care.  GPL (or similar 
> "virally" licensed) software carries legal implications for anyone 
> selling or distributing products that contain such software; and this 
> can be a motivation to use software with less-restrictive license terms.

Okay.

My limited understanding is that the GPLed parts of the product must be 
made available.  But I'm not aware that using GPLed parts means that 
/everything/ /else/ must also be made available.

Also, I believe /made/ /available/ means that it must be accessible or 
provided when asked.  Thus it does not mean that the GPLed code needs to 
be shipped with the product.

> I'm aware of a few random features that are in ksh93 but not other 
> shells (random, trivial, example that I saw just today*: "printf 
> %(FORMAT)T"). That said, my first impulse would have been to say no, 
> there aren't any meaningful (technical) advantages to ksh over bash -- 
> except that it seems there's still some amount of active development 
> going on in ksh:

The biggest motivation I had in a previous job was to make sure that my 
account's shell was set to a shell that lived on the root file system.

I could easily have that shell test to see if my preferred shell was 
available and start or exec it.  That way I could still log in if the 
file system with my preferred shell was not mounted.  As if I needed to 
address the underlying issue that was preventing the desired shell from 
being accessible.  E.g. /usr/bin/bash wasn't available b/c /usr wasn't 
automatically mounted at boot.

> So I guess, for some people at least, there are indeed reasons to prefer 
> it, including (according to users in those github issues) performance.

At my last job I helped administer some systems that didn't have any 
shells other than was was in the base OS installation.  (We won't talk 
about why.)

> On the licensing front, the GPL is an issue for bash; but zsh is 
> available as a more modern, fully-featured shell that avoids any GPL 
> issues.  This is why Apple switched the default shell in OSX from bash 
> to zsh: they wanted to avoid the GPLv3.  Previously, they had been 
> shipping the last GPLv2 version of bash, which was from 2006.  According 
> to this blog, they've been avoiding any GPLv3 code and actively working 
> to remove even GPLv2 code in OSX for quite a while:

That makes sense.

> * bash seems to recognize %(FORMAT)T, but only takes epoch seconds as an 
> argument.  ksh93 takes anything vaguely date-like.  zsh and pdksh don't 
> recognize it at all.

Interesting.

Thank you for the informative reply Jason.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4017 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-24 22:51               ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
@ 2021-12-24 23:15                 ` Richard Salz
  2021-12-24 23:34                 ` Michael Huff
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Richard Salz @ 2021-12-24 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Grant Taylor, TUHS main list

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 363 bytes --]

> My limited understanding is that the GPLed parts of the product must be
> made available.  But I'm not aware that using GPLed parts means that
> /everything/ /else/ must also be made available.
>

Your limited understanding is limited and/or incorrect, particularly for
operating system vendors.

This list is not the place to discuss the GPL, but please stop.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 681 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-24 22:51               ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
  2021-12-24 23:15                 ` Richard Salz
@ 2021-12-24 23:34                 ` Michael Huff
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Michael Huff @ 2021-12-24 23:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Grant Taylor; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4314 bytes --]

> My limited understanding is that the GPLed parts of the product must be
made available.  But I'm not aware that using GPLed parts means that
/everything/ /else/ must also be made available.

From what I read, you are correct -it doesn't. At least that's what the FSF
appears to say themselves:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLAndNonfreeOnSameMachine
There's been some attempts over the years (eg Microsoft's "get the facts"
campaign) to muddy the waters on that issue and paint the GNU license as
acting "cancerous"; but I'm not aware of any legal precedents backing that
up.

Another part of the same page that you might find interesting (regarding
distributing sources):
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DistributeWithSourceOnInternet

Of course if someone is acting as an owner or employee of a company they'll
want to consult their legal staff in addition to reading what the GNU have
to say as well.

/disclaimer; I do not work in IT, but have used Unix and Linux for 25 years
now -make of that what you will

On Fri, Dec 24, 2021 at 1:52 PM Grant Taylor via TUHS <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
wrote:

> On 12/21/21 11:23 PM, jason-tuhs@shalott.net wrote:
> > As an end user, you would not care.
>
> That tends to explain why I've not personally cared.
>
> > As a vendor or distributor, you would care.  Anyone doing an OS or other
> > software distribution (think the BSDs, of course; but also think Apple
> > or Microsoft) needs to care.  Anyone selling a hardware device with
> > embedded software (think switches/routers; think IOT devices; think
> > consumer devices like DVRs; etc) needs to care.  GPL (or similar
> > "virally" licensed) software carries legal implications for anyone
> > selling or distributing products that contain such software; and this
> > can be a motivation to use software with less-restrictive license terms.
>
> Okay.
>
> My limited understanding is that the GPLed parts of the product must be
> made available.  But I'm not aware that using GPLed parts means that
> /everything/ /else/ must also be made available.
>
> Also, I believe /made/ /available/ means that it must be accessible or
> provided when asked.  Thus it does not mean that the GPLed code needs to
> be shipped with the product.
>
> > I'm aware of a few random features that are in ksh93 but not other
> > shells (random, trivial, example that I saw just today*: "printf
> > %(FORMAT)T"). That said, my first impulse would have been to say no,
> > there aren't any meaningful (technical) advantages to ksh over bash --
> > except that it seems there's still some amount of active development
> > going on in ksh:
>
> The biggest motivation I had in a previous job was to make sure that my
> account's shell was set to a shell that lived on the root file system.
>
> I could easily have that shell test to see if my preferred shell was
> available and start or exec it.  That way I could still log in if the
> file system with my preferred shell was not mounted.  As if I needed to
> address the underlying issue that was preventing the desired shell from
> being accessible.  E.g. /usr/bin/bash wasn't available b/c /usr wasn't
> automatically mounted at boot.
>
> > So I guess, for some people at least, there are indeed reasons to prefer
> > it, including (according to users in those github issues) performance.
>
> At my last job I helped administer some systems that didn't have any
> shells other than was was in the base OS installation.  (We won't talk
> about why.)
>
> > On the licensing front, the GPL is an issue for bash; but zsh is
> > available as a more modern, fully-featured shell that avoids any GPL
> > issues.  This is why Apple switched the default shell in OSX from bash
> > to zsh: they wanted to avoid the GPLv3.  Previously, they had been
> > shipping the last GPLv2 version of bash, which was from 2006.  According
> > to this blog, they've been avoiding any GPLv3 code and actively working
> > to remove even GPLv2 code in OSX for quite a while:
>
> That makes sense.
>
> > * bash seems to recognize %(FORMAT)T, but only takes epoch seconds as an
> > argument.  ksh93 takes anything vaguely date-like.  zsh and pdksh don't
> > recognize it at all.
>
> Interesting.
>
> Thank you for the informative reply Jason.
>
>
>
> --
> Grant. . . .
> unix || die
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5471 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-23 17:23 ` John Cowan
@ 2021-12-23 20:08   ` silas poulson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: silas poulson @ 2021-12-23 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John Cowan; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

> On 23 Dec 2021, at 17:23, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately, approximately nobody except you has access to its man
> page. Can you post or email it?

If you’re having trouble using the source, also available at
<http://man.cat-v.org/unix_10th/1/sh>

Silas

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
@ 2021-12-23 19:10 Norman Wilson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 33+ messages in thread
From: Norman Wilson @ 2021-12-23 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

John Cowan:

  Unfortunately, approximately nobody except you has access to
  [the 10/e sh] man page.  Can you post or email it?

===

I am happy to remind you that you're a few years out of date:

https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=V10/man/man1/sh.1

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
  2021-12-22 14:40 Norman Wilson
@ 2021-12-23 17:23 ` John Cowan
  2021-12-23 20:08   ` silas poulson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: John Cowan @ 2021-12-23 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Norman Wilson; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 9:41 AM Norman Wilson <norman@oclsc.org> wrote:


> Shell wars are, in the end, no more interesting than editor wars.
>

+1.  One person's "fully-featured software" is another person's "ten pounds
of crap in a five-pound bag".

> Bourne-family shells


All of which, considered as programming languages, are badly designed, in
the usual way of sofa beds and other allegedly dual-purpose pieces of
furniture.  Scsh is a shell that's a high-quality programming language
(namely Scheme), and I have just discovered xonsh, which is like scsh for
Python.  I have some ideas for a shell based on rc and Lua.

> To my mind, the Research 10/e sh had it about right,
>

Unfortunately, approximately nobody except you has access to its man page.
Can you post or email it?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2157 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

* Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?
@ 2021-12-22 14:40 Norman Wilson
  2021-12-23 17:23 ` John Cowan
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 33+ messages in thread
From: Norman Wilson @ 2021-12-22 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

Thomas Paulsen:

  bash is clearly more advanced. ksh is retro computing.

====

Shell wars are, in the end, no more interesting than editor wars.

I use bash on Linux systems because it's the least-poorly
supported of the Bourne-family shells, besides which bash
is there by default.  Ksh isn't.

I use ksh on OpenBSD systems because it's the least-poorly
supported of the Bourne-family shells, besides which kh
is there by default.  Bash isn't.

I don't actually care for most of the extra crap in either
of those shells.  I don't want my shell to do line editing
or auto-completion, and I find the csh-derived history
mechanisms more annoying than useful so I turn them off
too.  To my mind, the Research 10/e sh had it about right,
including the simple way functions were exported and the
whatis built-in that told you whether something was a
variable or a shell function or an external executable,
and printed the first two in forms easily edited on the
screen and re-used.

Terminal programs that don't let you easily edit input
or output from the screen and re-send it, and programs
that abet them by spouting gratuitous ANSI control
sequences: now THAT's what I call retro-computing.

Probably further discussion of any of this belongs in
COFF.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 33+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-12-24 23:35 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-12-22 22:43 [TUHS] ksh88 source code? Warren Toomey
2020-12-22 23:01 ` Clem Cole
2020-12-23  1:29   ` John P. Linderman
2020-12-23 22:57     ` Warren Toomey
2020-12-23  3:30 ` Rico Pajarola
2020-12-23  9:03   ` Thomas Paulsen
2020-12-23  9:14     ` Rico Pajarola
2020-12-23  5:46 ` Scot Jenkins via TUHS
2020-12-23  7:19   ` Efton Collins
2021-12-21 13:55     ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
2021-12-21 16:21       ` Larry McVoy
2021-12-21 16:27         ` Warner Losh
2021-12-21 17:15           ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
2021-12-21 17:31             ` Boyd Lynn Gerber
2021-12-21 19:09               ` Richard Salz
2021-12-22  6:23             ` jason-tuhs
2021-12-24 22:51               ` Grant Taylor via TUHS
2021-12-24 23:15                 ` Richard Salz
2021-12-24 23:34                 ` Michael Huff
2021-12-21 16:42         ` John Cowan
2021-12-21 16:47           ` Chet Ramey
2021-12-21 17:09             ` John Cowan
2021-12-22 11:11           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
2021-12-21 22:15         ` Thomas Paulsen
2021-12-22  7:44           ` arnold
2021-12-22 14:35           ` Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
2021-12-22 14:36             ` Chet Ramey
2021-12-23 13:39       ` [TUHS] Bourne shell source code (was Re: ksh88 source code?) Cyrille Lefevre via TUHS
2020-12-23  6:56 ` [TUHS] ksh88 source code? arnold
2021-12-22 14:40 Norman Wilson
2021-12-23 17:23 ` John Cowan
2021-12-23 20:08   ` silas poulson
2021-12-23 19:10 Norman Wilson

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).