Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 08/26/2002 19:16:34
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Greywolf wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> # There was a proposal about this a few months ago on tech-userlevel
> # that gave further details of the benefits of this.
> "a few" == "somewhere between nine and twelve".
> "proposal" == "This is going to happen, so get ready and deal."
Makes me wonder if some Linux gnomes have started wandering off into
NetBSD development... :-/
The /etc/rc.d/ debacle was bad enough, but this really goes beyond
I'll not complain if I can choose wether I want to introduce this new idea
or not, but otherwise I cannot do anything else than recommend those who
ask to select something else than NetBSD (and efter using it for more than
10 years, this isn't an easy choise).
Maybe time to see if something else can be made to run on my VAXen...
Or perhaps we should fork off NetBSD to something else, a bit leaner,
faster and more simple in it's approach to life?
The original idea behind separating /bin and /usr/bin still holds. /bin
should work if at all possible, and not be depending on other cruft, which
might break. If we start on this path, why on earth should we even bother
with /usr/bin (and the others...)?
If disk use is the issue (which I almost imply from the original post),
then that person must be totally out of touch with reality. A gain of a
meg or two wasn't even that significant fifteen years ago.
/rescue will then fill the same function as /bin (and /sbin) does
today. Seems a bit silly to have most tools twice, just because someone
insisted on that files in /bin (and /sbin) should be dynamically
linked. And as people have noted, the speed penalty will be *severly*
noted on some machines.
The *only* advantage that I've seen mentioned that is an advantage is that
if/when new versions of libraries are made available, the binaries will
not have to be recompiled.
Against this we have the definitely bigger hazzle when the system breaks
(I only hope it even boots), we have a speed penalty, we're spreading
libraries out, we're cluttering up the root system, and we'll have two
versions of some files just because we'll have to. Not because it actually
makes any sense.
*If* people want this, they are free to have it, but I *don't* want it,
and I sincerely hopes that I can select not to follow this path, and still
stay with NetBSD.
> NetBSD: Can we risk exposing the humans to our advanced technology?
I think we're starting to move backwards.
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: firstname.lastname@example.org || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol