Re: No benefit for running sash as root shell?

[Neale Pickett <neale@lanl.gov>]

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.
>> 

> Noted.

> 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
   minimum :-)

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.