From owner-freebsd-questions  Sat Aug 26 19:58:19 1995
Return-Path: questions-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id TAA03282
          for questions-outgoing; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 19:58:19 -0700
Received: from i-2000.com (i-2000.com [204.97.92.2])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA03273
          for <questions@freebsd.org>; Sat, 26 Aug 1995 19:58:17 -0700
Received: by i-2000.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA23318; Sat, 26 Aug 95 22:57:09 EDT
Message-Id: <9508270257.AA23318@i-2000.com>
X-Mailer: Post Road Mailer (Green Edition Ver 1.03)
To: questions@freebsd.org
From: Francisco Reyes <freyes@i-2000.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 1995 22:54:44 EST
Reply-To: Francisco Reyes <freyes@i-2000.com>
Subject: Paths vs program execution
Sender: questions-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

I created a small c program and placed it on $HOME/bin since this  
was on the path. When I ran the program from $HOME the  
program did nothing. If I change to the same directory where the  
program is then it works (I don't remember, but I think I had to  
use ./ to run it also).

Are there any drawbacks to adding . (current directory) to the  
path? I understand how path works (from using DOS), but I  
wonder why the current directory is not part of the path as it is  
standardly configured.