Article View: comp.unix.shell
Article #1007Re: sh vs. sh5 in ultrix
From: terryl
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 1990 18:16
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 1990 18:16
28 lines
1544 bytes
1544 bytes
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.....
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<8045@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tekcrl!tekgvs!sail!terrylReferences:
<3865@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <13289@hydra.gatech.EDU>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!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