Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 12:15:32 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed Message-ID: <200011091915.MAA43115@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:09:58 PST." <200011091909.eA9J9wM10639@earth.backplane.com> References: <200011091909.eA9J9wM10639@earth.backplane.com> <200011091223.eA9CNQW26294@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200011091909.eA9J9wM10639@earth.backplane.com> Matt Dillon writes: : I'd recommend against the linux /lib + /usr/lib model, it's a big : mess. I don't see much of a point in cutting the size of /bin and : /sbin down, they are already fairly small (3.8M and 10M) and it : isn't as though we need the disk space! The static nature of : /bin and /sbin have saved me more times then I can remember. I also : have unfond memories of blowing /lib up under linux and not being : able to do anything. In the general case I'd agree with you. Disk is cheap. And almost all system have split / and /usr. In the small, embedded world, however, reducing the 4.1M and 12M to 600k and 1200k respectively is a huge win. We at Timing Solutions run FreeBSD in 16M or 32M or 64M parts where an extra 6M is a huge win. Especially on the 16M part. The minimal system that I had went from 14.7M to 7.9M which pushed the 16M part from being useless to being useful (we have about 6M of binaries and sundries that go onto these systems). I also plan on putting together a small 16M X terminal for the iopener with this if all goes well. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011091915.MAA43115>