From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11739 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2000 21:26:44 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 20 Jul 2000 21:26:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 17681 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2000 21:26:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 12330 Received: (qmail 17674 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2000 21:26:33 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:26:30 -0700 From: R Joseph Wright To: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: zsh bloat? Message-ID: <20000720142630.B6110@manatee.mammalia.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i I just installed zsh and am very impressed by its configurability and speed. In a number of different places I've seeen references to zsh being bloated, one person on slashdot claimed it to be more bloated than bash. Even on the online documentation there are a few references to it not being "small". I'm running FreeBSD, which comes by default with sh and tcsh. Here I compare it to those two, and some others: % du /bin/sh /bin/tcsh /usr/local/bin/bash /usr/local/bin/ksh /usr/local/bin/zsh 440 /bin/sh 592 /bin/tcsh 736 /usr/local/bin/bash 328 /usr/local/bin/ksh 352 /usr/local/bin/zsh Zsh shows itself to be smaller than all the others, with the exception of ksh, and vastly smaller than bash. Unless I am missing something, zsh seems quite the opposite of bloat. With all its awesome features, how can it be done? Please cc me in your reply, for I am not subscribed. Joseph