Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 03:03:03 +0000 From: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.1.20031119025920.031d6970@popserver.sfu.ca> In-Reply-To: <p06002030bbe08b5ce74d@[128.113.24.47]> References: <200311190238.hAJ2c1b4096141@apollo.backplane.com> <200311182307.hAIN7Wpm000717@dyson.jdyson.com> <20031118182148.P35215@pooker.samsco.home> <200311190238.hAJ2c1b4096141@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 21:54 18/11/2003 -0500, Garance A Drosihn wrote: >Many freebsd users (me for one) are still living on a modem, >where even one bump of 1.5 meg is a significant issue... > >Remember that the issue we're talking about is security >updates, not full system upgrades. "Everyone" would want >the security updates, even if they're on a slow link. If people rebuild from source, the binary sizes don't affect the update time. If people use FreeBSD Update -- which is the only binary security update tool around -- then they're using binary patches, and that 1.5MB is actually closer to 10 kb. The bandwidth usage associated with updating a system is only a concern for people who roll their own binary update mechanism -- and those people aren't likely to be doing everything over a modem. Colin Percival
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5.0.2.1.1.20031119025920.031d6970>