> Same reason why tcsh and ksh didn't get traction, and they even have merit to them.
In the world of enterprise Unix, ksh is king. It is used even for "serious" applications, not only as the sysadmin's glue of choice (the company where I work at was using, in 2009, a HR payroll application written in ksh. Had they not outsourced accounting to a third party, they would probably still be using it today).
Granted, "legacy" Unices are being slowly obsoleted by Linux, but ksh lives on. It would be unthinkable for RHEL or SLES to deprecate ksh and leave it out of the distribution - enterprise customers would probably think this is some kind of a bad joke.
ksh is king (for writing portable shell scripts) because it has long had a reputation for being the one shell that was available everywhere, and worked the same everywhere.
People who want to utilize its access to hundreds of administration tasks across most (all?) of Microsoft's server products, to automate administration tasks.
EDIT to add:
Same reason why tcsh and ksh didn't get traction, and they even have merit to them.
I can't tell: is the implication here that Powershell doesn't have merit? I'm trying to understand.
Same reason why tcsh and ksh didn't get traction, and they even have merit to them.
Who is the target audience? UNIX command line people certainly aren't. Then who, people that managed to learn VB Scripting host?
That's just not how things work.