[TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Warren Toomey]

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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Clem Cole]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[John P. Linderman]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Warren Toomey]

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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Rico Pajarola]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Thomas Paulsen]

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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Rico Pajarola]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Scot Jenkins via 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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Efton Collins]

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
>

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Cyrille Lefevre via 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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Larry McVoy]

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 

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Warner Losh]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Grant Taylor via 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Boyd Lynn Gerber]

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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Richard Salz]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[jason-tuhs]

>> 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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Grant Taylor via 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Richard Salz]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Michael Huff]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[John Cowan]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Chet Ramey]

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/

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[John Cowan]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Cyrille Lefevre via 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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Thomas Paulsen]

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?

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[arnold]

"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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Cyrille Lefevre via 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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[Chet Ramey]

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/

[TUHS] Bourne shell source code (was Re: ksh88 source code?)

[Cyrille Lefevre via 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

Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code?

[arnold]

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