To:	OPENDOS AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject:	Re: [opendos] OS advancements and old technology: My viewpoint.
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970210061231 DOT 285b-100000 AT capslock DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.101)
From:	Richard Hoskins <rmh AT interlaced DOT net>
Date:	10 Feb 1997 13:58:18 -0500
In-Reply-To:	mharris@blackwidow.saultc.on.ca's message of Mon, 10 Feb 1997 06:56:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID:	<m3vi80bi9h.fsf@sorites.net>
Lines:	24
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca writes:

> ls writes to the screen amazingly fast in Linux.  Although I
> don't have the sources handy, I'd bet that it does use direct
> screen writes..  

Just for the record, GNU/Linux systems usually use the `ls' from the
FSF's file utilities package. 

ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/fileutils-3.16.tar.gz   

These almost assuredly don't write to a screen, but use the systems
termio.  Writing to the screen would be a very un-Un*xish thing to do.
For one thing, ls would have to be run suid root.

If you still don't think that DIR's slowness is due to DOS's horrible
term IO (which should be fixed no matter how this particular argument
is resolved), just compile the file utilities on a Win32 system and
try `ls'.

-- 
Do you think the ``Monkees'' should get gas on odd or even days?

- Raw text -