[lkml]   [1999]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: /bin/true (Re: GNU/Linux stance by Richard Stallman)
In article <>,
Brian J. Swetland <> wrote:
>[david parsons <o.r.c@p.e.l.l.p.o.r.t.l.a.n.d.o.r.u.s>]
>> >
>> >ObKernel: the kernel does not fall back to using /bin/sh to execute files
>> Well, that sucks. That means that I have to resort to wasting
>> FIFTY-SIX WHOLE BYTES to have /bin/true work properly in all
>> situations (yeah, I could probably make it smaller, but to do
>> that would mean that I'd need to do it in assembly rather than
>> C.)
>Wouldn't it be more worthwhile to just make it a shell builtin (it
>was pointed out to me that bash does this)?

Well, if you're just going to execute it from a shell, a zero-byte
/bin/true is better, because it won't lock people into using a
specific shell.

But who cares about that when you can get into a righteous tizzy
over wasting FIFTY-SIX WHOLE BYTES on your, umm, 16gb / partition.

david parsons \bi/ "precious bodily fluids"

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.072 / U:2.272 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site