Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:03:20 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net> To: softweyr@xmission.com (Wes Peters) Cc: randyd@nconnect.net, questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Shells shells shells? Message-ID: <199609201403.JAA01462@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <199609201350.HAA03020@obie.softweyr.com> from "Wes Peters" at Sep 20, 96 07:50:29 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > The one disadvantage is size: > > text data bss dec hex > 225280 12288 45048 282616 44ff8 /bin/csh > 270336 16384 44052 330772 50c14 /bin/sh > 335872 20480 7236 363588 58c44 /usr/local/bin/bash > > Fortunately this doesn't hurt quite so much on FreeBSD, you really > only have one copy of that 330K text segment in memory, regardless of > how many bash sessions you have running. > Especially, if you build your bash without shared libs. Shared libs both do not save memory in the case of progs like bash, but also slow down fork/exec times significantly. I personally like both bash and ksh. There is a real ksh available for free from Lucent (the old Bell-labs/hardware part of AT&T), that was specifically compiled for BSDI, but works on 2.1.5 and 2.2-current. I think that ksh is a bit smaller than bash also. Both shells are good (IMO.) I can see it now: Shell Wars!!! :-). John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609201403.JAA01462>