From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Mar 19 13:21:58 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from dsl-64-193-218-89.telocity.com (dsl-64-193-218-89.telocity.com [64.193.218.89])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0866737B72F
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 13:21:53 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from lucas@slb.to)
Received: (qmail 17910 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Mar 2001 18:00:15 -0000
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 12:00:14 -0600
From: Lucas Bergman <lucas@slb.to>
To: Christopher Leigh <clcont@gmx.net>
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: uhm. why isn't there a vigr for freebsd?
Message-ID: <20010319120014.A3274@billygoat.slb.to>
Reply-To: lucas@slb.to
References: <200103190333.f2J3XDe33615@grumpy.dyndns.org> <000f01c0b02f$191482e0$fa87a7d8@king1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <000f01c0b02f$191482e0$fa87a7d8@king1>; from clcont@gmx.net on Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 10:43:07PM -0600
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> i still like typing vigr. (linux spoils me...)

Whatever.

> i guess
> 
> #!/bin/sh
> vi /etc/group
> 
> will have to suffice. :)
> 
> any security concerns in doing that?

Good enough.  No security problems unless the script is setuid,
setgid, or something like that.

> could i do
> 
>  #!/bin/sh
> exec vi /etc/group

Yes.

> what's the difference?

The second method saves one process.  In the first example, you have

  (1) /bin/sh process (say, x) starts, taking commands from your script
  (2) process x starts a new process y, which runs 'vi'
  (3) when you're done editing, process y exits
  (4) process x looks for more commands, hits end of file, so process x
      exits

In the second example, you have

  (1) /bin/sh process (say, x) starts, taking commands from your script
  (2) process x runs 'vi' (no new process is created)
  (3) when you're done editing, process x exits

To use some lingo, using the 'exec' shell builtin means the current
shell's process is *replaced* with the command that follows.  Clearly,
this implies no further commands in the script get executed after an
'exec' is run.  See this by running

  #! /bin/sh
  exec echo first
  echo second

> ty.

yw.

Lucas

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message