Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 14:40:56 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> Cc: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com>, Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au>, Warner Losh <imp@village.org>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed Message-ID: <200011092240.eA9Meu903694@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Nov 2000 11:23:28 PST." <20001109112328.T5112@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> [001109 11:11] wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> root on a Linux box is unable to do squat when the machine is almost
> out of memory because he can't map in /lib/libc.so to run 'ps' or
> even another copy of bash.
Um. And root on a BSD box is equally screwed when there's no memory left
to map in the text segment of 'ps' which just happens to contain another
copy of libc.
The difference being that if libc is shared, it's already mapped in for
the hundreds of other programs using it, so you're *better* off, not
worse.
--
... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his
rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want
to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force
people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt]
V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E
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?200011092240.eA9Meu903694>