Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register


Groups > comp.unix.programmer > #16924

Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?

From Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net>
Newsgroups comp.unix.programmer
Subject Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible?
Date 2025-01-14 17:16 +0000
Message-ID <87ikqh5n9u.fsf@doppelsaurus.mobileactivedefense.com> (permalink)
References <vm5dei$2c7to$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw


Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> writes:
> When I recently inspected an 'strace' log and saw the huge amount
> of system-calls done for a simple standard command (like 'rm') -
> it's more than a dozen! and most lead just to ENOENT - I wondered
> about the default PATH definition which is for my system
>   /usr/lib/lightdm/lightdm
>   /usr/local/sbin
>   /usr/local/bin
>   /usr/sbin
>   /usr/bin
>   /sbin
>   /bin
>   /usr/games
> (here I'm omitting my own additions, '~/bin' and '.', and I separated
> them, one on each line for a better visualization of the "problem" or,
> maybe better, for the "questions".)
>
> The above PATH components are for a terminal running under some
> window manager, a plain console window will not show the 'lightdm'
> entry (but I rarely work on plain consoles).
>
> This raises a few questions, and someone may shed some light on the
> rationale for above default settings... (and how to "fix" it best)

Why do you want to change that? At worst, this will make seven execve to
execute binary. Usually, it will rather be 4. That's not going to take a
noticeable amount of time.

As far as I could determine, some sort of path searching has existed
since the 6th edition of UNIX (., /bin and /usr/bin hardcoded in the
shell) and in its present form, it has existed since the 7th edition of
UNIX. Which means PATH searching was used on PDP-11 16-bit minicomputers
in the 1970s. It didn't cause performance problems back
then and will thus certainly don't cause any today.

Back to comp.unix.programmer | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar


Thread

Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-14 11:14 +0100
  Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-14 13:55 +0000
  Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-14 17:16 +0000
    Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-14 17:22 +0000
      Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-01-14 17:59 +0000
      Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-14 19:23 +0000
        Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-14 22:17 +0000
          Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-14 23:24 +0000
          Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-15 15:38 +0000
            Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-15 15:52 +0000
              Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-15 19:19 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-16 00:03 +0100
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-01-15 23:14 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-19 13:50 +0100
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-01-15 23:26 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-16 11:51 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-19 14:10 +0100
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-19 20:36 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-01-19 15:55 -0800
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-01-16 17:01 +0000
                Re: Default PATH setting - reduce to something more sensible? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@talktalk.net> - 2025-01-16 19:07 +0000

csiph-web