[ On Monday, March 19, 2001 at 21:48:51 (+0100), wojtek@wojtek.from.pl wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: ksh and tab completion
>
> ksh is much faster and takes much less memory than bash.

I was beginning to wonder if anyone noticed....  :-)

Bash is also rather bug-ridden and not always as compatible with normal
shells as is normally desirable....

(Un)Fortunately /bin/ksh also smaller and perhaps faster than /bin/sh:

i386 $ size /bin/sh /bin/ksh
text    data    bss     dec     hex     filename
395707  9112    19964   424783  67b4f   /bin/sh
373739  3776    23356   400871  61de7   /bin/ksh

sparc $ size /bin/sh /bin/ksh
text    data    bss     dec     hex     filename
473736  9100    19192   502028  7a90c   /bin/sh
446112  3804    22508   472424  73568   /bin/ksh

... still too large for a programming shell IMNSHO....

I'd be willing to try to argue on the side of removing command-line
editing and any other non-POSIX garbage from NetBSD's /bin/sh (except of
course a built-in test and maybe a built-in expr) now that /bin/ksh is a
standard feature.  Then we'd have faster scripts and still a nice
command-line shell.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>