----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 1@dont-email.me> 187925a1
@REPLY: 1@dont-email.me> b5c87b13
@REPLYADDR Janis Papanagnou
<janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Janis Papanagnou
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 1@dont-email.me>
@RFC-References: <kmj8hhFq8tqU1@mid.individual.net>
1@dont-email.me>
@TZUTC: 0200
@PID: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 15.09.2023 17:11,
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2023 15:37:37 +0100 Martijn Dekker
> <
martijn@inlv.demon.nl> wrote:
>> But when AT&T terminated development in 2020, ksh was left buggy
>> and unreliable. ksh 93u+m aims to fix this situation whilst
>> maintaining and
>
> I used it back in the day and never found it buggy or unreliable.
Uh-oh! - There were bugs, and even most obvious ones had been left
unfixed for years. (So glad that Martijn & Co. provides reliable
updates.) Despite these bugs I was using ksh as my shell of choice
since the early 1990`s.
> No doubt as with all mature software where the devs need to justify
> their continued update of it, a load of mostly useless features were
> added which they found interesting to do and added a load of bugs in
> the process.
Weren`t David and Glenn working on ksh`s features until they left?
What were (in your opinion) these "mostly useless features" that
you have in mind?
I`m asking because the subset of bugs I stumbled across had often
been (also) in old functionality, and myself using newer features
of ksh that are useful to me and (though not 100% free of bugs -
and which complex software would claim so?) typically just work.
Janis
--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441