Well Chris you obviously only run desktop systems, and never run anything from remote. You're one of those people who believe that having a boot disk solves all reliability problems, and I guess you have just never been in a situation where that isn't an option.
I wish my life were as simple as yours. Justin On Tue, Aug 17, 1999 at 02:18:47PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: > Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I think you'd be surprised to learn how little RAM we're talking > > about here. > > I think you'd be surprised at how little RAM I and many other people > have. Especially on some of my systems. My 486 to-be-router has > trouble with the *existing* system, *not* running X. > > > Especially if the statics used old libc rather than > > glibc > > A logistical nightmare. The maintainer is forced to keep statically > linkable copies of the old libc, along with headers and all. And to > ensure that any incompatibilities between the older libc and new are > resolved. Are you volunteering to create these packages? If so, then > I'd certainly be willing to see them as an *option* for the paranoid. > But I have no interest in building, installing or using them. > > > If you actually analyze it, we're talking about very small > > amounts of memory here, in excange for a large increase in > > the reliability of the system. > > My system has been running quite reliably for nearly three years now. > I don't need *any* increase in reliability, let alone a large one. > At which point, I'm looking purely at the costs. And I find the costs > unacceptable, since *I* get *no* measurable benefit whatsoever. > > > But if finally you still somehow insist that you cannot afford > > the extra 300k of RAM that static linking would cost you, then > > yes they could be put in /sbin or somewhere like /stand instead, > > and you could ignore them most of the time... until your system > > failed. > > I would ignore them entirely. In fact, I see no reason to install > them at all. I *have* a boot floppy for emergencies, and I've never > had a need for even that in the nearly three years I've been running > Debian. > > Like I say, if you want to make *optional* packages for the paranoid, > then I have no objections. If you want to make this standard, then I > strongly object. > -- > Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the > or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into > http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file. > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
