Los Angeles1
asked on
Does this mean ksh is installed
Does this mean ksh is installed
(I know this seems a bit of an odd question, but I have to ask for verification purposes
$ rpm -qa | grep ksh
ksh-20100202-1.el5_5.1(I know this seems a bit of an odd question, but I have to ask for verification purposes
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
rpm and Ctrl-V are good answers.
"which ksh" or "whence ksh" will show which "ksh" is found in $PATH
"ls -ld /bin/ksh" may reveal that bash or pdksh, etc, is linked to appear as /bin/ksh
Versions: 2 possible ksh versions: 88, 93
1988 is the widely-used version on AIX, Sun Solaris, HP-UX.
Ksh 93 is sometimes found on Linux installs and on SCO Unix.
A short list of ksh88 syntax doesn't work the same way when run by ksh93.
"which ksh" or "whence ksh" will show which "ksh" is found in $PATH
"ls -ld /bin/ksh" may reveal that bash or pdksh, etc, is linked to appear as /bin/ksh
Versions: 2 possible ksh versions: 88, 93
1988 is the widely-used version on AIX, Sun Solaris, HP-UX.
Ksh 93 is sometimes found on Linux installs and on SCO Unix.
A short list of ksh88 syntax doesn't work the same way when run by ksh93.
$ rpm -qa | grep ksh
ksh-20100202-1.el5_5.1
This is indeed official, genuin "ksh 1993", David Korn's much-improved version of "ksh 1988",
Unfortunately ksh88 is far more popular in enterprise Unix, and a very small percentage of
ksh88 syntax works differently in ksh93.
Just beware of using scripts written to run on ksh88.
ksh-20100202-1.el5_5.1
This is indeed official, genuin "ksh 1993", David Korn's much-improved version of "ksh 1988",
Unfortunately ksh88 is far more popular in enterprise Unix, and a very small percentage of
ksh88 syntax works differently in ksh93.
Just beware of using scripts written to run on ksh88.
$ cat /etc/shells command. See the number 4 example on this page.
http://www.thegeekstuff.com/2009/10/change-login-shell-from-bash-to-sh-csh-ksh-tcsh/