Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 14:38:06 -0700 From: "Michael L. VanLoon -- MindBender.serv.net" <michaelv@MindBender.serv.net> To: "Frode Nordahl" <froden@bigblue.no> Cc: "Ernie Elu" <ernie@spooky.eis.net.au>, "isp@FreeBSD.org" <isp@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Shell? Message-ID: <199608312138.OAA14535@MindBender.serv.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 31 Aug 96 17:13:57 %2B0100. <199608311511.RAA04262@login.bigblue.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> Anyone know of a shell that supports filename completing (Like
>>> TCSH) that is SMALLER, (like csh or sh). tcsh eats up 1 MB of ram, so
>>> it's a bit "expensive" shell to use as default shell, but we need
>>> filen ame completion when preessing <TAB>...
>>I just use bash, seems to be robust. A bit less than 700kb per session.
>Yeah, but that still is more than 256K :)
Remember that *BSD uses shared text segments, and that even if it is
using 768KB, 388KB of that (on my NetBSD system with tcsh 6.06,
anyway) is shared by every tcsh running in the system.
Also, keep in mind that certain bloat is inevitable if you want
"features". Ash (NetBSD's default sh -- I think FreeBSD uses
something different) is nice and small, but doesn't do nearly as much
as bash or tcsh.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. VanLoon michaelv@MindBender.serv.net
--< Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x >--
NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac 68k, Amiga, Atari 68k, HP300, Sun3,
Sun4/4c/4m, DEC MIPS, DEC Alpha, PC532, VAX, MVME68k, arm32...
NetBSD ports in progress: PICA, others...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199608312138.OAA14535>