Path: utzoo!telly!ziebmef!cks
From: cks@ziebmef.uucp (Chris Siebenmann)
Newsgroups: can.uucp
Subject: Re: size of smail
Message-ID: <1989Jan2.001754.11708@ziebmef.uucp>
Date: 2 Jan 89 05:17:53 GMT
References: <314@ontenv.UUCP> <88Dec17.114819est.38035@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <984@dgbt.uucp> <1988Dec30.012400.18278@ziebmef.uucp> <428@aurora.auvax.uucp>
Reply-To: cks@ziebmef.UUCP (Chris Siebenmann)
Distribution: can
Organization: Ziebmef Public Access Unix, Toronto, Ontario
Lines: 25

In article <428@aurora.auvax.uucp> lyndon@auvax.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes:
>In what way is smail too large?  It's running quite happily on a few
>diskless 3/50's here (plus just about every other machine in the shop).
>The binaries come in at roughly 250KB. That's not even *close* to the
>size of our emacs binaries. It's also HALF the size of the paths file
>it has to work with :-)

 Smail 2.5 here is 19K (using a shared library and stripped), and the
paths file (I use a smart host) is 1K. When you only have 67M of disk
space, such considerations matter. Since I'm a uucp-only site, all I
really need is the bugs in smail2.5 fixed.

>One nice thing is that the code is very modular, therefore the binary
>you generate doesn't have much fluff in it for capabilities you don't
>need or want. 

 How big is the binary for a uucp-only site? Somehow, I suspect the
small simple sites of the world have been forgotten in the quest for
ever more neat features.

-- 
	"Hey, thats's why Dad moved to Colorado. He sits Zen now. 
		Me, I like the mountains."
Chris Siebenmann		uunet!{utgpu!moore,attcan!telly}!ziebmef!cks
cks@ziebmef.UUCP	     or	.....!utgpu!{,ontmoh!,ncrcan!brambo!}cks