Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 13:26:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu> To: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> Cc: jiho@sierra.net, freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: gnumalloc Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950817132329.3635D-100000@espresso.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <9508171530.AA12523@cs.weber.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Aug 1995, Terry Lambert wrote: > > But your rebuttal just provides another example of the point. In the > > single-user desktop PC world, if things get THAT fouled up you just > > re-install the whole system from scratch, with important files presumably > > backed up securely. Your argument would be considered somewhere > > pretty far out on the fringe, frankly. But even accepting it, why would > > anyone consider putting /usr on a separately-mounted partition on any > > machine except a server? What purpose is served [ ;) ] for a single-user > > desktop machine? > > I, for one, thing that everything should be linked shared, period, and > if you have aproblem with /usr/lib, you either duplicate the shared > library and put it in /slib, under the mount point for /usr, or you > make a /slib. If I got this next point wrong, I'm surprised, but I thought Jim was making a case for not having such areaa of non-shared tools, like /slib. Nor an /sbin. Didn't he say he'd link init shared? I agree on maximal sharing, but I _do_ leave myself an emergency recovery method. Jim was saying that if he needed an emergency recovery, he'd dump the whole installation and rebuild. I think that's overkill. > > SunOS, Solaris, UnixWare, and AIX all have less in the way of static > binaries than FreeBSD does, in any case. > > I think the reinstall aregument is salient; that's what /stand and the > bootfs file system is for inSVR4, and it's what a miniroot install is > for SunOS and Solaris. > > > It still amazes me that, although most UNI* machines are single-user > > workstations, it doesn't occur to people to reconsider the notion that > > workstations should carry all the baggage that only multi-user servers > > actually require. This one-size-fits-all approach has limited the > > appeal of UNI*. (The hardware margins of workstation vendors, > > however, have attracted a fair amount of envy in the PC clone market, > > where everyone is counting on Windows 95 to prop things up.) > > I don't think people are advocating that, though there is sufficient > "cruft" in the minimal distribution that could be pared out (ala the > SCO system component installation paradigm) that it makes me wonder > sometimes. > > > And since this all started with the memory usage of X and its clients: > > How many sites do you know of, where the network transparency of X is > > actually utilized as originally designed? What happened to the X terminal > > market? > > NCD is still the leader, with HP not far behind. 8-). > > > I thought the newsgroups had been abandoned to arguments like > > this.... > > 8-(. > > > Terry Lambert > terry@cs.weber.edu > --- > Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present > or previous employers. > ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@eng.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 9120 Edmonston Ct #302 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run Journey2 (Freebsd 2.0.5-snap-0726) and (301) 220-2114 | n3lxx (FreeBSD 2.0.5-snap-0622) -- Great! ----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SUN.3.91.950817132329.3635D-100000>