Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:42:09 -0000 From: "Duncan Barclay" <dmlb@dmlb.org> To: "Maxim M. Kazachek" <stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything Message-ID: <000e01c3b26f$3b457eb0$a7ac77c1@DJK1Comp> References: <62981.24.0.61.35.1069202574.squirrel@mail.yazzy.org><200311190103.hAJ13Nlg000923@dyson.jdyson.com><20031119015433.GN30485@roark.gnf.org> <3FBC2053.6040208@mindspring.com><20031120022009.GB29530@dan.emsphone.com> <3FBC29EF.3030009@mindspring.com><3FBC50DB.3000002@acm.org> <20031123225117.GA24696@dragon.nuxi.com> <017701c3b21f$f39bf340$43c8a8c0@orac> <20031124092346.F63116@sbk-gw.sibnet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > >From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> > > > >> I'll seriously argue against the 2nd point above. I don't know of a > >> SINGLE person that uses /bin/sh as their interactive shell when > >> multi-user. Not ONE. Every Bourne shell'ish user I've ever met uses > >> Bash, AT&T ksh, pdksh, zsh. > > > >I don't know anyone that farms lama's, so there cannot be any lama farmers. > > > >computer$ grep dmlb /etc/passwd > >dmlb:*:1166:1166:Duncan Barclay:/home/dmlb:/bin/sh > > > >Duncan > So, imagine, i'm accidentally deleted /bin with your most wanted > static sh... And, of course, due to static nature of /bin/sh it was > removed from /rescue? Nothing will protect you from shooting in the leg, > neither static linking, nor assumption that /lib is OK. > > > MOST people uses /bin/sh only for rc scripts (to be correct, their system > uses it). David O'Brien just tried to told, that NOBODY he knows will be > REALLY impacted by performance loss, caused due dynamic /bin/sh linking. > You will... So, because Duncan Barclay is impacted by performance > loss due dynamic /bin/sh linking, ENTIRE FreeBSD community will have > troubles (at least with NSS) due to static linking... Maxim, I was merely rising to David's bait for some proof that people use /bin/sh as an interactive shell. You're correct in saying that if /bin/sh on my machines gets hosed it won't matter too much - I'll use another shell to rebuild the machine, or boot from an install CD to get a shell. But as part of me fixing the machine, I'll put /bin/sh back on. I didn't say anything about NSS and I don't intend to as I don't need it. The debate should be held between people that need the functionality but want it implemented in different ways. As to performance loss, I really don't think I'm going to notice it - the cheapest machine I can find in the UK is an Athlon 1800XP, that has a lot more grunt than I need. This may not be true for others. Duncan > Sincerely, Maxim M. Kazachek > mailto:stranger@sberbank.sibnet.ru > mailto:stranger@fpm.ami.nstu.ru > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000e01c3b26f$3b457eb0$a7ac77c1>