Subject: Re: /rescue, crunchgen'ed?
To: None <Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 08/30/2002 15:02:00
On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > If you don't agree that a single point of failure makes things less safe
> > I'm sure NASA would be interested in hearing about your deductive
> > skills. :-)
> What makes you think that having lots of separate programs, each of which
> does different things and cannot represent the functionality of another
> isn't a single point of failure?
Let me see...
Hmmm, sure looks like that could be somewhat equivalent to ls...
cat foo > bar
Heck, that works almost the same as cp!
mv foo bar
Well, foo didn't disappear, but there is no foo anymore.
cat > foo
A usable substitute for an editor if what I'm creating is very small and
cp foo bar; rm foo
That looked almost like a mv.
mount myothermachine:/foo /mnt
cp /mnt/bar .
Hey, they seem to result in the same thing. Imagine that.
I can probably go on for a while longer, but I *hope* you get the point
this time. I have been forced to do things this way sometimes, when things
turned bad (on a few occasions, cp on NetBSD/vax have been known to stop
working because some mmap problem).
> As has been pointed out. If you are worried about things like that. Then
> install several /rescue directories. Better still, do that on several
> different disks, and arrange your system so that you can boot from any of
> them in an emergency.
That is also an option. But /rescue is rather vulnerable, plus I probably
don't even know if it works until the day I'm going to use it.
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