Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!dd26+
From: dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
Subject: Re: sh vs. sh5 in ultrix
Message-ID: <kasyOjW00VI8I0gZoU@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 4 Sep 90 17:38:55 GMT
References: <3865@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>,
	<879@iiasa.UUCP>
Organization: Chemistry, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 16
In-Reply-To: <879@iiasa.UUCP>

wnp@iiasa.AT (wolf paul) writes:
> 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
>
> -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.

I suspect that the first figures are for a DECstation and the last are
for a VAXstation.  Remember, RISCish binaries will almost always be
much bigger than CISCish binaries.
-- 
DdJ