[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: root's shell
Alexander L. Belikoff wrote:
> I was talking about general case - not only Linux, where you have a
> nice recue disks :-)
Well, first - it's a Linux mailing list and therefore I assumed you
are talking about Linux. Secondly - don't worry for "real" UNIX -
there are miniroot rescue procedures for them too, which essentially
give similar functionality to the Linux' rescue disk.
> However, I still think there should be a list of statically linked
> administration utilities. Again, even if you screw up you shared
> libraries, these tools must be able to run. The more independent they
> are in this sense, the better.
You just say what you think - but you don't back your position
with a good reason. When an essential utility is screwed up, even
if it is statically linked, you can't use it and have to go "down" to
a rescue disk. On the other hand, these statically-linked utilities
each will hold a copy of the libc routines it was compiled with,
wasting RAM and CPU. Then again there is also the argument of
upgredability. So for now I can see only negative points in
the "solution" you suggest.
> As for the disk space, trust me, they'll fit into 2-3 Meg perfectly
> (on Intel systems).
But they will take up that much space of RAM too, and since they are
used a lot these are exactly the utils you would like to minimize.
Also you'd like to save as much space on rescue disks as you can,
and that's were shared libs win again.
> In any case, the ability to achieve a goal in more than one way is
> great. And in a system administration it's vital.
Yes, but having other options doesn't mean you have to take them -
they might be just worse.
Cheers,
--Amos
--Amos Shapira | "Of course Australia was marked for
| glory, for its people had been chosen
amos@gezernet.co.il | by the finest judges in England."
| -- Anonymous
Follow-Ups:
References: