Roland Dowdeswell wrote:

> Well, yes and no.  We just hacked /bin/sh to use vfork(2) rather
> than fork(2) based on this speedup.  So, ksh which still uses
> fork(2) is going to be a lot slower.

It is very hard for me to believe what I'm seeing here, I can only 
describe it as "bizarre"; that people are actually wasting time on 
discussing how to micro-optimize the shell interpreter.  As if it were 
of any value if one shell executes ten thousand commands a second faster 
than the other; it is even of no benchmark value, since you would have 
to measure typical script workloads and not a simple loop, and besides, 
if you want something fast, sh surely isn't the proper language to do 
it!  *incredulously shaking head*

-- 
Matthias Buelow