Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!sail!terryl
From: terryl@sail.LABS.TEK.COM
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: sh vs. sh5 in ultrix
Message-ID: <8045@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Date: 4 Sep 90 18:16:53 GMT
References: <3865@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <13289@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM
Reply-To: terryl@sail.LABS.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 28

In article <13289@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0178a@prism.gatech.EDU (BURNS,JIM) writes:
>in article <3865@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>, rouben@math13.math.umbc.edu says:
>> -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
>
>Well, that's amusing. Try:
>
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 root        23552 Nov 19  1987 /bin/sh*
>-rwxr-xr-x  1 root        39936 Nov 18  1987 /usr/bin/sh5*


     ls -l is pretty useless on executables. What if one executable had its
symbol table stripped, and the other one didn't????

     Try size(1) instead. It has more meaningful output....

text	data	bss	dec	hex
90112	8192	3112	101416	18c28		/bin/sh.bsd

92176   8528    7652    108356  1a744		/bin/shs.sysv

     And here's the ls -l output:

-r-xr-xr-x   1 bin      root      101216 Jun 20 15:25 /bin/sh.sysv
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root     other     133120 Feb 20  1990 /bin/sh.bsd

     Note that the bsd sh is actually smaller according to size(1), but ls -l
shows it is bigger, due to the symbol table.....