On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 01:00:45AM +0900, Bang Jun-Young wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 07:23:23AM -0600, Richard Rauch wrote:
> > I don't know.  See
> > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2002/11/03/0011.html and tell
> > me what it means.  (I had to manually type that, so in case it's wrong,
> > the key sentence was "Many of the programs in /rescue lack features of
> > their counterparts in /bin and /sbin (things are left out IN ORDER TO MAKE
> > THEM SMALLER)." (My emphasis).)
> > 
> > Now, if that sentence (in particular, the emphaszed part) was bogus, then
> > I'm happy.  If not, then I repeat that I'm distressed to hear that the
> > size of the binaries in /rescue was an issue.  IMHO, they should not be
> > gratuitiously dysfunctional.
> > 
> > Please note that that is *not* a complaint from someone about increased
> > usage of / space.
> 
> I'm often surprised that why so many people misunderstand that the major
> (and the only) benefit of dynamically linked binaries is saving disk
> space. You know, hardly anybody cares about 10MB savings on his 100GB
> disk nowadays. What dynamically linked binaries give is much more than
> smaller disk space.

I'm often surprised how many people seem to assume that laptop,
desktop or server installations are all that NetBSD runs on.  My HP
Jornada 728 (hpcarm) has a 128 MB CF card.  I'm very happy that there
are dynamically-linked binaries.

Regards,
Alistair