Date: Thu, 17 Aug 95 9:30:20 MDT From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: jiho@sierra.net Cc: chuckr@Glue.umd.edu, freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: gnumalloc Message-ID: <9508171530.AA12523@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199508162205.AA01418@diamond.sierra.net> from "Jim Howard" at Aug 16, 95 01:35:49 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> But your rebuttal just provides another example of the point. In the > single-user desktop PC world, if things get THAT fouled up you just > re-install the whole system from scratch, with important files presumably > backed up securely. Your argument would be considered somewhere > pretty far out on the fringe, frankly. But even accepting it, why would > anyone consider putting /usr on a separately-mounted partition on any > machine except a server? What purpose is served [ ;) ] for a single-user > desktop machine? I, for one, thing that everything should be linked shared, period, and if you have aproblem with /usr/lib, you either duplicate the shared library and put it in /slib, under the mount point for /usr, or you make a /slib. SunOS, Solaris, UnixWare, and AIX all have less in the way of static binaries than FreeBSD does, in any case. I think the reinstall aregument is salient; that's what /stand and the bootfs file system is for inSVR4, and it's what a miniroot install is for SunOS and Solaris. > It still amazes me that, although most UNI* machines are single-user > workstations, it doesn't occur to people to reconsider the notion that > workstations should carry all the baggage that only multi-user servers > actually require. This one-size-fits-all approach has limited the > appeal of UNI*. (The hardware margins of workstation vendors, > however, have attracted a fair amount of envy in the PC clone market, > where everyone is counting on Windows 95 to prop things up.) I don't think people are advocating that, though there is sufficient "cruft" in the minimal distribution that could be pared out (ala the SCO system component installation paradigm) that it makes me wonder sometimes. > And since this all started with the memory usage of X and its clients: > How many sites do you know of, where the network transparency of X is > actually utilized as originally designed? What happened to the X terminal > market? NCD is still the leader, with HP not far behind. 8-). > I thought the newsgroups had been abandoned to arguments like > this.... 8-(. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9508171530.AA12523>