From owner-freebsd-questions  Mon Mar 19 16:57:12 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from shorts.nts-online.net (dns2.nts-online.net [216.167.161.36])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DFB537B737
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 16:56:55 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from clcont@gmx.net)
Received: from king1 (dialup-lbb-0202.nts-online.net [216.167.131.202])
	by shorts.nts-online.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id f2K0mYO15065;
	Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:48:35 -0600
Message-ID: <005801c0b0d8$ac851040$ca83a7d8@king1>
From: "Christopher Leigh" <clcont@gmx.net>
To: <lucas@slb.to>
Cc: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
References: <200103190333.f2J3XDe33615@grumpy.dyndns.org> <000f01c0b02f$191482e0$fa87a7d8@king1> <20010319120014.A3274@billygoat.slb.to>
Subject: Re: uhm. why isn't there a vigr for freebsd?
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 18:57:00 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

thank you again.

so. is there a way to get it to waste less memory?


----- Original Message -----
From: Lucas Bergman <lucas@slb.to>
To: Christopher Leigh <clcont@gmx.net>
Cc: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: uhm. why isn't there a vigr for freebsd?


> > 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
>


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