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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16898 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2021 16:28:39 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 21 Dec 2021 16:28:39 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7F4B49CE4F; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:28:38 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DADDC9490D; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:28:12 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="PdBxLa/3"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DFD3E9490D; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:28:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f52.google.com (mail-ua1-f52.google.com [209.85.222.52]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DFE99461A for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:28:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f52.google.com with SMTP id o63so12413509uao.5 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:28:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gIPRnQFL0BSztHtU5l1xtOXfi6wSkKLWaZpL16OqiAo=; b=PdBxLa/3u4esXZoiBTyp7Dv9v9drZ7kP0q8iu0BZEMjchhbTwy7wH//c9te9n/1I2S v+ovID5rs40G+Ws8C5K1haWBVfjZ5/dttUgcHZ99LkkgOzBeQct9Pikoj2Sphp/x6/NS h5TX1ROU4jyryfS8IdFHWn+5ReYnkHragYybR0GvpvmxsoJsWxPeKzqmzDZE3r+7SGgE uAgG7dom3sjQUb07hQW9u8JatRhfyOOWaAHfYGf7Gghf0PEMSdGnDhszDOeb3PedGbfl fT+zgKjfaAv+0eA0sEskwaqpWppHKzXia0nuEtwf/V6jOmmCpk2Wb6SjyIxotedZUPu5 VYHQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gIPRnQFL0BSztHtU5l1xtOXfi6wSkKLWaZpL16OqiAo=; b=M5Nll8p9pzLS165y4FRRtskHao4brWIn5PEPk9m/nNS71VEdjfSGYkpWaA8QxHW9/x wfGMXMlqR14zdYgoc1zxN0p++tApQYypeoawB3mPsjSoyzIQfn2L0YItG6lIS1LVZUom zLfn0OEgPPJZkia9UjPq9xBsvTXBvMsYsG5wjLuYodExZZCQA1LTaqJkz4BpLnvWUsPt K6t71h1gPctKOGBdgiIqOh6+tz5d5UcZW2w8WjZF3Dz5W92dOb4dSJkdINuf2oBVt0ds 929wxtYbFMACO0PKCpw2tVLjCx7oU6rsIgiupZg2e0k//sNYsj1ipn4MyYuP8Nwo7qSY o2XQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Dq/jJd3x5Bqnnoaw2M9wpB4OWmo5dPwBzZqQ8++Y4+4e+ljiK eJHPKUl8lUys7mGRBJtzlxkXuUw/tdaq1OiiSm/KCw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3xH68YkSazOIiM4+IHXC3/zoHg+0vqqNYlbi0b8haAEgSp7jJtLnf/qz0krmHXNTDFvX4rm208PLsBF3uIvY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:ed3:: with SMTP id m19mr1789407vst.68.1640104088744; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:28:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201222224306.GA28478@minnie.tuhs.org> <202012230546.0BN5kDwe028815@sdf.org> <1653639b-8e41-7437-8c0e-32564dfdd788@laposte.net> <20211221162139.GP24180@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20211221162139.GP24180@mcvoy.com> From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:27:58 -0600 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009ac68205d3aa7d9d" 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: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000009ac68205d3aa7d9d Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Dec 21, 2021, 10:22 AM Larry McVoy 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 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 > --0000000000009ac68205d3aa7d9d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


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?=C2=A0 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://git= hub.com/weiss/original-bsd/tree/master/local/toolchest/ksh
> >
> >I found the link at the bottom of this interesting page:
> >https://www.in-u= lm.de/~mascheck/various/shells/ksh_versions.html
> >
> >and this link contains a surprising amount of information on many<= br> > >shell versions released over the years -
> >https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/va= rious/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.or= g/details/ATTUNIXSystemVRelease4Version2
> >>has source for several releases.
> >>
> >>click "show all" on the right under "download o= ptions",
> >>the file sysvr4.tar.bz2 has source for ksh88:
> >>
> >>from cmd/ksh/sh/msg.c:
> >>msg.c:=C2=A0 =C2=A0 MSG e_version =3D "\n@(#)Version M-11= /16/88d\0\n";
> >>
> >>I think this was for x86 PCs.=C2=A0 I haven't tried to bui= ld it.
> >>The date on the files is Jan 25 1993.
> >>
> >>scot
> >>
> >
> --
> mailto:Cyrille.Lefevre-lists@laposte.net
>

--
---
Larry McVoy=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 l= m at mcvoy.com=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
--0000000000009ac68205d3aa7d9d--