bash or ksh
 

Don't want to start a holy war here. I been using bash for a long time and use it on Linux and BSD. Since OpenBSD promotes ksh I was wondering if it would be worth convert to ksh fomr productivity gain etc. purposes (if there's any!)

I would expect an answer from someone who has converted from bash to ksh or use bash and ksh at the same time.

Thanks.

I've used both. ksh has a few capabilities that bash does not, and vice versa. In addition to those minor differences, there is the consideration of which shell to use for scripts you will be sharing with others in your computing community.

1. If you hang with Linux folks, sharing bash scripts with them will flow more smoothly, because most of them already use bash.
2. If you hang with developers in the commercial software Unix world (AIX, Sun, etc.), or I guess also OpenBSD (I was not aware of that), sharing ksh scripts with them will flow more smoothly, because most of them already use ksh.

For differences between bash and ksh, go here:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/bash/

... and search that page for "Korn" or "ksh".

That page also has much other useful bash info.

Hope this helps.

best choice: zsh.

Even bash with bash-completion is nothing comparing to zsh functionality.

ksh versus bash
 

I agree, ksh is more powerfull but unless you are going to do the trouble to study the advantages of ksh it may be better to stick to bash which is more prevalent in Linux. Oupa. [Previously used ksh with AIX Unix, now using bash with Linux]

I would learn both. I liked both and thought each had it's own advantages and disadvantages. I used bash at home but the AIX machine at work used ksh.

I was going to suggest that as well. ;)