Erm, no. The original ksh93 was revived by AT&T a few years ago and Debian now package the new "2020" version in sid: https://packages.debian.org/sid/kshLE_746F6D617A7A69 wrote:ksh and many other shells are mostly dead projects (f.e. the last commit in ksh was in 2012, and it's not actively developed since that time)
There is also the MirBSD KornShell, which is the stock shell for Android and so has more users than bash: http://www.mirbsd.org/mksh.htm ← last commit 20 days ago.
And don't forget OpenBSD's ksh(1)
No, KornShell has nothing to do with the POSIX sh specification, which is what I was talking about...LE_746F6D617A7A69 wrote:this has nothing to do with "clear specification"
Yes and that's exactly my point — if the POSIX sh specification is followed and a /bin/sh shebang employed then scripts will be portable between distributions and operating systems.LE_746F6D617A7A69 wrote:If "bashisms" means using bash-specific features, then we have also "dashism" and "kashism" for ksh - all those shells have specific features or parameters which are breaking portability of scripts.
No need for that, Debian already has over 200 active bug reports: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgrepo ... t=unstableLE_746F6D617A7A69 wrote:I'm using Bash for running quite complex scripts, and I haven't found any bugs - if You can prove Your claim, You should file a bug report.
And even the man page admits to it's failings:
It's too big and too slow.