Re: No benefit for running sash as root shell?
Jules Bean writes:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>> Previously Jules Bean wrote:
>> > Not much there on statically linked files at all. Anyone care to point me
>> > to a discussion on this?
>> I can't find it anymore, although I'm sure it is somewhere. Basically
>> it comes down to this: compiling everything static makes the /sbin tree
>> much bigger, and thus more likely to get hit by corruption. If you use
>> dynamically linked programs everything is smaller and thus reducing
>> the risk of things getting corrupted. But on the downside if libc is
>> corrupted you still loose.
>> Either way it's a tradeoff. Our current system has been working for years
>> and I don't see any need to chance it.
> There is a case which can be made, then for a 'static-kit' package, which
> contains statically linked copies of a shell, and somre core utilities
> like fsck, getty, login (init?) and so forth. This could then divert the
> existing binaries out the way.
Here here. This would serve two purposes:
1. Provide something useful to those who want it
2. Keep the complaining about no statically linked binaries down to a
There are a lot of other issues regarding this which have already been
beaten well into the ground, so I won't raise them again.