8 Jan
2020
8 Jan
'20
3:46 p.m.
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 14:57:40 -0500.
From: Doug McIlroy <>
To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org, thomas.paulsen(a)firemail.de
Subject: Re: [TUHS] screen editors
Message-ID: <202001071957.007JveQu169574(a)coolidge.cs.dartmouth.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
.. snip ..
% wc -c /bin/vi bin/sam bin/samterm
1706152 /bin/vi
112208 bin/sam
153624 bin/samterm
These mumbers are from Red Hat Linux.
The 6:1 discrepancy is understated because
vi is stripped and the sam files are not.
All are 64-bit, dynamically linked.
That's a real big vi in RHL. Looking at a few (commercial) unixes I get
SCO UNIX 3.2V4.2 132898 Aug 22 1996 /usr/bin/vi
- /usr/bin/vi: iAPX 386 executable
Tru64 V5.1B-5 331552 Aug 21 2010 /usr/bin/vi
- /usr/bin/vi: COFF format alpha dynamically linked, demand paged
sticky executable or object module stripped - version 3.13-14
HP-UX 11.31 748996 Aug 28 2009 /bin/vi
-- /bin/vi: ELF-32 executable object file - IA64