[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:0.021 / U:211.936 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site