From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Aug 17 10:48:27 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id KAA27849 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 10:48:27 -0700 Received: from cs.weber.edu (cs.weber.edu [137.190.16.16]) by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id KAA27842 for ; Thu, 17 Aug 1995 10:48:26 -0700 Received: by cs.weber.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1.1) id AA12943; Thu, 17 Aug 95 11:40:57 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Message-Id: <9508171740.AA12943@cs.weber.edu> Subject: Re: gnumalloc To: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 11:40:57 MDT Cc: jiho@sierra.net, freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "Chuck Robey" at Aug 17, 95 01:26:49 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL52] Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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. I think you need root level system binaries to the point that /usr *can* be mounted seperately, even if it isn't the default case. I didn't get anything from Jim's post that would imply he thought otherwise, only that the argument of "what if this goes wrong AND this goes wrong AND this goes wrong..." is complicated to the point of a reinstall being a better option than worrying about contingencies to the point of losing sight of the real problem. Its the case of "don't optimize the boot code" or more colloquailly, "don't miss the forest for the trees". Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.