From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 15 13:54:44 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E227616A473 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:54:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frank@esperance-linux.co.uk) Received: from mailout.zetnet.co.uk (mailout.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.47.231]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7979413C467 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:54:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from frank@esperance-linux.co.uk) Received: from irwell.zetnet.co.uk ([194.247.47.48] helo=zetnet.co.uk) by mailout.zetnet.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1J3XTW-0005fQ-P5 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:54:42 +0000 Received: from esperance.zetnet.co.uk (54-144.adsl.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.54.144]) by zetnet.co.uk (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-9) with SMTP id lBFDsgWf016960 for ; Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:54:42 GMT Received: (qmail 17034 invoked by uid 1001); 15 Dec 2007 13:54:37 -0000 From: "Frank Shute" Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:54:37 +0000 To: Gerard Seibert Message-ID: <20071215135437.GB16763@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> References: <20071214175906.D727.A38C9147@seibercom.net> <20071215010359.GA13564@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <20071215065435.741B.A38C9147@seibercom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071215065435.741B.A38C9147@seibercom.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Face: *}~{PHnDTzvXPe'wl_-f%!@+r5; VLhb':*DsX%wEOPg\fDrXWQJf|2\,92"DdS%63t*BHDyQ|OWo@Gfjcd72eaN!4%NE{0]p)ihQ1MyFNtWL X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.3-RC1 i386 X-Organisation: 'Esperance Linux' X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (zetnet.co.uk [194.247.46.1]); Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:54:42 +0000 (GMT) Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful. X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Frank Shute List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:54:44 -0000 On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:57:09AM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote: > > > On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote: > > > > > > > On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote: > > > > > > [ snip ] > > > > > > > I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight: > > > > > > > > $ ls -l /bin/sh > > > > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh > > ~ $ ls -l /bin/sh > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 111788 Oct 5 13:55 /bin/sh* I can understand why the size of sh might be different. Different patch levels. (Built almost 2 months apart). > > > > > > $ ls -l /bin/ksh > > > > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 681584 Oct 6 12:33 /bin/ksh > > > > > > > > How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;) > > > > > > ~ $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash > > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 643984 Sep 12 15:51 /usr/local/bin/bash* > > > > > > > pdksh has put on weight. Used to be ~300k in the 4.* days and bash > > about 500k IIRC. On my machine bash is bigger than yours (newer version?): > > ~ $ bash --version > bash --version > GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) > Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Same as mine: $ bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2) Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc. I'm not too sure why my bash is different in size. I guess it sucked in slightly different code when built due to our base systems being the 2 months apart. [snip] -- Frank Contact info: http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/misc/contact.html