Re: Serious "Bug" in most major Linux distros.
On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:04:17PM -0400, Rob Ransbottom wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Petro wrote:
> > So it has been brought up before, over 2 years ago, and it's still
> > wrong?
>
> It is not wrong, it just yields little protection. Just from the disk
> getting corrupted under an in core shell. This will only be of benefit
> if you need to keep your machine up about .99999 of the time.
> Even then I ask: You _want_ to keep your users going when your shared
> libs are flakey???
I don't have "users" in the normal sense. I run clusters of web and
database servers, things that are hard to keep backed up 100%.
I do have a few users, but they are mostly developers, and on their
staging and dev boxes it might be necessary at some point to get in
and recovery certain bits.
But it's not just about *me*, I can, because of the resources I have
available to me in a medium sized installation (currently around 100
servers) take a box down and replace it with another one until I
have time to get down the colo and do things some other way.
Not everyone has this luxury.
> Shared libs could implement a load_all_required_functions routine.
> This would let a program getuid and act like it had static libs.
This sounds more complex, and unnecessary complexity is not a good
thing.
> I just keep a rescue partition loaded with debian-base. This
> has lots of benefits. And having your normal root environment is
> nice in stressful situations.
That isn't a bad idea.
--
My last cigarette was roughly 31 days, 9 hours, 3 minutes ago.
YHBW
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: