From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 16 09:44:34 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 CF7A916A417 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:44:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2BE1513C459 for ; Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:44:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from LoN_Kamikaze@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 16 Dec 2007 09:44:32 -0000 Received: from nat-wh-1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (EHLO homeKamikaze.norad) [129.13.72.169] by mail.gmx.net (mp007) with SMTP; 16 Dec 2007 10:44:32 +0100 X-Authenticated: #5465401 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+2+cZSX1G2KbkJV0YGY6kWE7B29KB6Yi3GW5bwjM YXVggX+Lkqz1fz Message-ID: <4764F37E.2010106@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 10:44:30 +0100 From: Dominic Fandrey User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (X11/20071203) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Frank Shute References: <20071214175906.D727.A38C9147@seibercom.net> <20071215010359.GA13564@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> <20071215065435.741B.A38C9147@seibercom.net> <20071215135437.GB16763@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20071215135437.GB16763@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 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 List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 09:44:34 -0000 Frank Shute wrote: > 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] > Such differences can as well happen due to different CPUTYPE settings.