From: gt8134b@prism.gatech.EDU (Howlin' Bob) Subject: Re: NetBSD's ash as /bin/sh substitute on Linux Date: 21 Aug 1993 06:05:35 GMT
chet@odin.ins.cwru.edu (Chet Ramey) writes:
>In article <109551@hydra.gatech.edu>,
>Howlin' Bob <gt8134b@prism.gatech.EDU> wrote:
>>>Minimalism, I suspect. Anything to keep that /bin/sh binary small.
>>To harp on "modern," it should be pointed out that modern Unices usually
>>demand-page their executables. If the test portion of the code were not
>>used, then it wouldn't be paged in.
>You're right, but that's not what I'm talking about. As it was
>explained to me, the BSD folks want the binary itself to be as
>small as possible, to fit on extremely small root partitions and
>take up as little space as possible on boot disks. For this they
>are willing to sacrifice some speed.
And they won't include "test" on their boot disks? Hmm. I think
they'd get more mileage out of shared libraries.