martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 21 May 2004 01:39:55 +0200: > > --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 > Content-Disposition: inline > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > also sprach Martin McCormick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.05.20.2126 += > 0200]: > > Is it just more efficient in resources to use plain #! /bin/sh > > rather than bash? > > surely not. /bin/sh is generally linked to bash (... by default, > that is).
That's a rather Linux centric answer (and doesn't even apply to busybox like installations where /bin/sh is minimally posix-compliant). It's also possibly wrong, because when in sh mode (ie, invoked with $0 of "sh"), bash would disable certain features that could well lead to a faster executing code (probably not by much, if anything). -- TimC -- http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/staff/tconnors/ hey Beavis, we're segfaulting, heh heh heh, I know, Butthead, so let's SIGBUS from inside the handler, heh heh heh --Stephen J. Turnbull -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
