>Richard,
>    Not to split hairs here, and dangerously close to being off topic,
>but isn't sh linked to ksh?

Hi, Matt -

Yes, indeed.  In Unix parlance, "sh" is the Default Shell, or Standard Shell - a
rather non-specific reference to whatever actual shell the operating system
developers deign to employ as their standard.  In early AIX, it used to be
Bourne shell.  These days, in AIX and Solaris it is Korn shell.  As of IRIX 6.4,
sh is the Korn shell rather than the Bourne shell (and backward compatibility is
governed by the environment variable _XPG).  Things change under us - and can
change again.  That's why the inittab man page for each Unix talks of running
things under sh, not specifically mentioning ksh, so that they can alter the
underlying mechanism at will.

Aliasing a common module is a means of economizing in programming and software
proliferation by taking advantage of similar logic and processing available in
one place.  Such programs detect the name under which they were invoked and then
follow tributaries as needed in their processing, further influenced by
environment variables.

In current AIX, ksh, psh, sh, and tsh are in one module; Rsh and bsh are in
another.  Be careful to specify bsh in script headers (#!/usr/bin/bsh) when you
really want Bourne shell!

   Richard Sims, BU