Re: how to make Debian less fragile (long and philosophical)
Wednesday, August 18, 1999, 2:24:59 AM, Marek wrote:
> Oh, not again. That's pure demagogy (sp?) - it DOESN'T matter that they will
> be useful in 10 out of 1000 cases, can't you understand it?
10 in 1000? I see less than 1 in 10,000. Meanwhile in the other 9,999
cases it is wasteful.
> It's the same as if you said that mounting an air-bag in a car in a *VAST*
> >>>MAJORITY<<< of cases they are wasteful. You have a choice - DON'T buy an
> air-bag, DON'T install those binaries. Point.
Actually, air-bags were legally required to be installed for a number of
years. People didn't have a choice. In some locations they still do not.
Nevermind that they are detrimental in some cases. Now there are laws
requiring people to specifically ask for airbags not to be installed on the
passenger side because they have caused fatalities in children in car seats on
the passenger side.
Lovely, isn't it.
You have a choice, if you want statically linked binaries, *COMPILE THEM*.
It is my opinion that if a person needs such protection they had also better
have the expertise to compile what they need and be willing to *USE* that
expertise. If not, go to NT, we don't need you here.
> Yeah, yeah. There is memory cost, of course, and a huge one - but they will
> be used in such rare cases that it in *VAST* >>>MAJORITY<<< of cases doesn;t
> matter.
Uh-huh, each time you run those common commands it incurs extra memory
usage. Gee. My laptop will love you. Geez.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: