Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 04:13:49 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Frank Shute <frank@esperance-linux.co.uk> Cc: Mike Jeays <mike.jeays@rogers.com>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: pdksh vs. mksh info [was: Re: Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.] Message-ID: <20071215021349.GF2062@kobe.laptop> In-Reply-To: <20071214211008.GA12935@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk> References: <20071214010542.GA19553@demeter.hydra> <200712132012.32729.mike.jeays@rogers.com> <20071214211008.GA12935@melon.esperance-linux.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2007-12-14 21:10, Frank Shute <frank@esperance-linux.co.uk> wrote: > I used bash for an interactive shell for about 5 years until I > discovered the goodness of pdksh. About half the size, statically > linked, not full of bugs and better editing features. Plus it's not > GPL. Hi Frank, Now that you mention pdksh, have you tried mksh (in Ports too)? I've installed it and successfully run moderately large ksh scripts (like the webrev(1) utility of OpenSolaris), and it is about an order of magnitude smaller than pdksh here: % keramida@kobe:/usr/local/bin$ ls -ld mksh bash ksh % -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 684699 Dec 9 19:51 bash % -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 2390645 Aug 31 17:07 ksh % -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel - 236202 Dec 9 18:34 mksh % keramida@kobe:/usr/local/bin$ ldd mksh bash ksh % mksh: % libc.so.7 => /lib/libc.so.7 (0x280ae000) % bash: % libncurses.so.7 => /lib/libncurses.so.7 (0x28101000) % libintl.so.8 => /usr/local/lib/libintl.so.8 (0x28144000) % libiconv.so.3 => /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so.3 (0x28156000) % libc.so.7 => /lib/libc.so.7 (0x2824b000) % ldd: ksh: not a dynamic executable % keramida@kobe:/usr/local/bin$
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071215021349.GF2062>