Mail Archives: opendos/1997/02/11/06:23:59
On 10 Feb 1997, Richard Hoskins wrote:
> > 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
You neglected to quote my full message. I stated that ls in
Linux runs faster than DIR in DOS. Meaning that DIR in DOS uses
direct screen writes (ala 4DOS). Therefore either ls uses direct
screen writes in Linux, or else the Linux term I/O routines are
faster than the 16 bit code used in DOS/4DOS. My entire point
being that Linux doesn't necessarily HAVE to have direct writes
to be fast.
> 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.
Yes, it would have to be suid root. Regardless, it is FAST.
> 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'.
Naw, I'll just use Linux. Oh, and I'll code direct screen
writing into COMMAND.COM.
Mike A. Harris | http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant | My webpage has moved and my address has changed.
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca
Close windows, and OpenDOS! http://www.caldera.com/dos/dos.htm
- Raw text -