At 04:49 PM 9/11/00 -0500, David McNett wrote:
>
>-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1047184 Sep 11 11:31 /usr/local/bin/lynx
>-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 321608 Jun 4 19:06 /usr/local/bin/links
>-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 261132 May 22 08:10 /usr/local/bin/w3m
>
>This is reason enough for me to prefer w3m for the specific case we're
>discussing. Table support or no, it's hard to justify the size of lynx
>for what the original poster wants to do.
The byte size of the executable is only peripherally related to
the running size of a process. There might well be symbol tables
included in some of those but not others, for example.
"size" will give a better estimate of what memory will be used
when the process is launched. However, since memory may be
dynamically allocated, you need to do something like "ps -el"
on a running process to see what the actual memory footprint is.
<OT>
I have to say, I'll be permanently against "links" because of the
choice of name obviously designed to cause confusion with "lynx".
</OT>
<really-OT>
(If size matters so much, I wonder why so many people write perl
scripts when (g)awk and/or sed would do the same jobs in a much
smaller way.)
</r-OT>
Stan
