On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 12:33:39AM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 07:06:24PM +0100, Alistair Crooks wrote:
> > 
> > As I've said to Pavel and a number of people, I'm actually of the
> > opinion that we should go with ksh, despite the fact that I've never
> > used it as a login shell, and will probably never use it either.
> 
> I think that's a bad idea because to anyone who _is_ used to ksh --
> real ksh -- as a login shell, our ksh clearly doesn't cut it.

I don't think it is a problem. I proposed (our) ksh because it is fairly
good as interactive shell, not because it replaces the real ksh.

We could rename /bin/ksh to /bin/pdksh to make clear that it is not a
perfect ksh replacement. What do you think?

Pavel