Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Mon, Aug 16, 1999 at 07:56:14PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:

> (yes, I can hear you saying "you can always pass the 'init=/bin/sash'
> parameter to the kernel - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to do when you use a
> standard LILO installation - it doesn't allow the user to provide
> kernel params, it's not interactive).

if you mean the standard lilo.conf created by a debian install then
you are mistaken. press ? or TAB as soon as you see the LILO prompt
(actually you have about 2 seconds) and the boot will be delayed until
you select a kernel image, optionally enter args, and hit enter.

it's been like that for as long as i can remember, and i've been using
debian since around 0.93r5

(2 seconds isn't very much time so i usually increase the timeout
to 15 seconds - "delay=150" rather than "delay=20" - by editing
/etc/lilo.conf)


BTW, as noted above, i've been using debian for years. started using it
a version or two before infomagic screwed up the 1.0 release. i have
lost count of the number of debian boxes i have built since then...well
over 100, probably somewhere between 150 and 200. some built as stable,
but most were built with the current 'stable' and then immediately
upgraded to whatever is in 'unstable'. i've upgraded most of them since
then - some only a few times, some dozens and dozens of times (machines
i work with regularly get upgraded approx every week or two unless
there's a good reason not to upgrade that particular machine).

i can't recall even one time where dynamic libs failed and broke the
system. the closest we came to that was the libc5 to libc6 migration and
we came up with an automated upgrade script which avoided any problems
by upgrading certain packages in the right order.

i have nothing against the idea of having some statically linked
binaries in /bin or /sbin or wherever - but i don't think it will do
much (if anything) to increase debian's robustness. in my experience, it
is not necessary.



also BTW, this whole thread seems to have come about because you (or was
it someone else who started this thread?? i've lost track) decided to
upgrade from stable 'slink' to unstable 'potato' and got yourself bitten
by a temporary instability. tough. that's the way unstable is.

there is a good reason why unstable is called unstable...it's NOT
because the programs in there are any more buggy, it's not even because
the unstable dist as a whole hasn't been tested (although that is a
factor), it is mostly because unstable changes rapidly and without
warning.

the point of unstable is that it CAN change radically from day to day,
and it is never guaranteed to work or do anything.

if you decide to use unstable, that is entirely at your own risk. if
it does happen to work on one day (or even 99% of days) then consider
yourself lucky, but don't whinge if you're unlucky enough to use it on
one of the days when it doesn't work.

if unstable happens to be broken when you try it, then submit a bug
report or a patch or do other work on fixing anything you consider
broken - any of these actions will be respected. whinging and demanding
that others do work that only you consider to be important will do
nothing but annoy people.


craig

--
craig sanders