In article <3DF7AB14.7020300@mukappabeta.de>,
Matthias Buelow <mkb@mukappabeta.de> wrote:
>Martin Weber wrote:
>
>>>A more specific question is... which is the reason of having two
>>>bourne shells, ksh and sh?
>> 
>> One for daily use in scripts, one for daily use in your terminals ?
>> I like it :)
>
>Pdksh ought to be usable as a general /bin/sh replacement; I remember 
>OtherBSD using, or having used it as such years ago (don't know if they 
>still do, I'm not up to date.)
>
>OTOH, unless there's a big stream of bugs waiting for /bin/sh to be 
>addressed, the effort of removing it is probably rather cosmetic and not 
>worth the effort.
>
>> (btw, /bin/sh is about half the size of /bin/ksh ...)
>
>text    data    bss     dec     hex     filename
>344032  12288   17120   373440  5b2c0   /bin/sh
>323552  4096    23364   351012  55b24   /bin/ksh
>
>mkb  23611 14.1  1.3 444 300 p0 S    10:09PM 0:00.97 sh
>mkb  23595  4.6  1.3 432 300 p0 Ss   10:09PM 0:03.25 -ksh
>
>they look pretty much the same size to me (on 1.5.1/vax, at least).

Well, on current:

text    data    bss     dec     hex     filename
383935  22144   8248    414327  65277   /bin/bash
108795  4040    19816   132651  2062b   /bin/csh
162436  2800    6796    172032  2a000   /bin/ksh
90855   936     3612    95403   174ab   /bin/sh
239211  10276   193472  442959  6c24f   /bin/tcsh
313019  14732   30280   358031  5768f   /bin/zsh

But I guess sh is cheating because it is using libedit.

christos