In message <Pine.LNX.4.61.0512112148220.1950@m24s24.vlinux.de>, Hubert Feyrer w
rites:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005, Igor Sobrado wrote:
>> I am really happy with ksh(1) in NetBSD.  I think that sh(1), ksh(1)
>> and csh(1) are all required shells.  I have a friend in the Department
>> of Mathematics that uses tcsh too.  IMHO, ksh(1) is a shell that
>> provides the nice features of bash(1) without its complex or incompatible
>> features.  It is powerful and, at same time, simple.
>
>The unfortunate thing is that NetBSD's ksh is pdksh which has a number of 
>features that are not available in other ksh implementations - if it was 
>the same everywhere, I'd immetiately switch to it.

The divergence between pdksh and AT&T ksh has been rather an inconvenience
to nearly everyone.  Ironically, I like pdksh better.

-s