Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mcsun!tuvie!iiasa!wnp
From: wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: sh vs. sh5 in ultrix
Message-ID: <879@iiasa.UUCP>
Date: 4 Sep 90 13:32:17 GMT
References: <3865@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>
Reply-To: wnp@iiasa.UUCP (wolf paul)
Organization: IIASA, Laxenburg/Vienna, Austria, Europe
Lines: 25

In article <3865@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> rouben@math13.math.umbc.edu writes:
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 root     system      45056 Apr  1 12:27 /bin/sh
>-rwxr-xr-x  2 root     system     163840 Apr  1 09:56 /usr/bin/sh5
>
>So the executable for sh5 is more than three times larger than that
>of sh.  For quick execution of simple tasks there is a sense of 
>overkill in using sh5.  I guess that's the reason that the folks at
>DEC have not replaced sh with sh5.

Huh? On our VAX6210 running Ultrix 3.1:

-rwxr-xr-x  1 root        23552 Jan 11  1989 /bin/sh
-rwxr-xr-x  1 root        44032 Jan 11  1989 /bin/sh5

That's not even twice the size!

I suspect that on your machine, sh is stripped, and sh5 is not.

And SOME increase in size is almost necessary for an increase in
functionality :-) ...
-- 
Wolf N. Paul, IIASA, A - 2361 Laxenburg, Austria, Europe
PHONE: +43-2236-71521-465     FAX: +43-2236-71313      UUCP: uunet!iiasa.at!wnp
INTERNET: wnp%iiasa.at@uunet.uu.net      BITNET: tuvie!iiasa!wnp@awiuni01.BITNET
       * * * * Kurt Waldheim for President (of Mars, of course!) * * * *