steve@cs.uow.edu.au (Stephen Cliffe) (05/06/91)
Does anyone have any feeling for the overhead placed on a machine by running the more modern shells that support command line editing. We would like to make either bash or zsh available to our students and are a little concerned by the possible extra system overhead this could impose due to the use of raw-mode and therfore conext switches etc. Thanks, Steve.
rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu (Randy S. Welch) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May6.053630.569@cs.uow.edu.au> steve@cs.uow.edu.au (Stephen Cliffe) writes:
Does anyone have any feeling for the overhead placed on a machine
by running the more modern shells that support command line editing.
We would like to make either bash or zsh available to our students
and are a little concerned by the possible extra system overhead this
could impose due to the use of raw-mode and therfore conext switches
etc.
The biggest problem with bash is it's size, its alot bigger than sh :-)
There are 3 of us at work who use bash and another using a real old ksh,
with no undue effects on our old '020 box.
-randy
--
Randy Welch Mail to : ...!ncar!scicom!bldr!randy or rwelch@du.edu
Boulder, CO rwelch@nyx.cs.du.edu or (303) 442-6717
"Unfortunately, life contains an unavoidable element of unpredictability"
-David Lynch "The Angriest Dog in the World"