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> In-Reply-To: <000f01c0b02f$191482e0$fa87a7d8@king1>; from clcont@gmx.net on Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 10:43:07PM -0600 References: <200103190333.f2J3XDe33615@grumpy.dyndns.org> <000f01c0b02f$191482e0$fa87a7d8@king1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010319120014.A3274>