Re: itp: static bins / resolving static debian issues
Thursday, August 19, 1999, 5:13:15 AM, Marek wrote:
>> >If you are spending all day long running commands as root, spend the
>> >extra 1 second to type "bash" and stop complaining.
>> OK, so, let me get this straight. Now you want a statically linked ash to
>> be in memory while you do all your work in bash? You don't see a problem with
> NOT IN MEMORY YOU IDIOT! In an emergency there's a static ash available on
> DISK just in case you need to invoke some POSIX shellscript.
Marek, you are aware that Justin is calling for a statically linked ash.
Not a separate one, the DEFAULT ONE. Read his words.
>> Memory... Thanks for the memory!!!
> You need a brain, not memory.
You need reading comprehension.
>> Is it now? Your solution forces an increased memory load, possible
>> security holes, added complexity to *every* Debian system just for the benefit
> Where is that increased memory load, security holes??
I've pointed them out, you refuse to read.
>> I did, it's all bullshit.
> So what the fuck are you still doing here?! Go away and stop making noise
> down here!
Trying to keep this inane BS through because Justin doesn't have the
brains to take the precautions himself and he got burnt. He found out he is
an amateur. He worked in a non-redundant environment and got burnt. As a
result he now wants to impose precautions upon all Debian installations when
in a majority of cases for two very specific reasons which I have related
*SEVERAL TIMES* THEY ARE NOT NEEDED!!
To reiterate since you seem to have a lack of reading skills.
1: If a person is so paranoid about uptimes of the service they will have
a redundant architecture so they can replace the machine for *ANY* failure.
That includes the many failures which statically linked libraries WILL NOT
HELP. Hardware failure, loss of many of the system binaries INCLUDING THOSE,
etc. If they are not in such an architecture they should take their own
precautions and know that they have a single point of failure.
2: If they aren't so paranoid about it. THEY CAN USE A RESCUE DISK SINCE THEY
AREN'T WORRIED ABOUT REBOOTING THE MACHINE. In fact, as I pointed out, anyone
who wants to leave a crippled machine in place where it could cause more
problems that they cannot foresee is insane!
It is either 1 or 2. Both explain rather clearly why this whole damned
discussion is moot!
> Dammit! And who are YOU to make the opposite decision? Where are YOUR
> figures to contradict what Justin and others are saying? What critieria HAVE
> YOU set? Have YOU cleared this with each administrator of each Debian
> install?? I guess that in your mind YOU are the Unix God Himself!!
> Geez!!!!!!!!
It is called I am going with the least amount of intervention! I'm not
assuming everyone has huge hard drives, loads of memory, and tons of time to
scour through the install process to remove everything they *don't* want. I
prefer to have people chose what they *do* want aside from anything that
absolutely necessary for the operation of the machine. If it is necessary,
then it should be REQUIRED, not important!
What Justin is advocating is that because *HE* was an admin fuckup and
didn't take precautions now Debian, as a whole, and all installs, must take
the precautions for him. Oh, and now that someone else is an admin fuckup, we
have to take their precautions as well! And, hey, another admin fuckup does
something else wrong and we take his as well! All of a sudden instead of a
usable system we end up with a system that installs lots of things most people
don't need or want, protects the user from himself and assumes everyone is an
idiot.
You want that? Go play with Microsoft. Me, I'm frankly tired of the
trend.
--
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: