On Fri, 30 Aug 2002, Johnny Billquist wrote:

> And in both cases, two different files are more robust than a single
> file. It's the same story as with everything depending on libc at runtime
> (or any other single point of failure).
>
> 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. :-)

That's absurd. Our stuff doesn't even have to fly (I work for the
U.S.P.S, a.k.a "The Post Office"), and every moderately critical
system has duplicates that we can clone drives from, if not clean
install procedures.

I was initially against this change, but your increasingly desperate
arguments have convinced me to take the other side. Give it up already.

Frederick