Slashdot Mirror
/bin And /sbin Now Dynamically Linked In FreeBSD
Dan writes "Gordon Tetlow just committed a patch in FreeBSD current to change /bin and /sbin from statically to dynamically linked. The reason to do this is two-fold. This feature brings support for loadable PAM and NSS modules to base system utilities located in those directories. It also reduces the storage requirements for the root filesystem due to the use of shared libraries. This feature can be disabled in a buildworld by defining the Makefile (make.conf) variable WITHOUT_DYNAMICROOT. Note that statically-linked, crunched executables are available in the /rescue directory for use during system repair and recovery operations."
Yes, yes, it is.
The reason behind having /bin and /sbin as static linked is so that if you upgraded the libc and it failed, you still have a working system.
/bin or /sbin . With the old system, you didnt have to shut down to do a libc recovery. Now you do.
Be aware that now with this syetm, you wont be able to mv the crunched static exec's to
Baaaad.
... so important it is submitted to and accepted by /.?
I'm still somewhat surprised that this got committed now, shouldn't 5.2 be released Really Soon Now? This looks like something that ought to be tested in -CURRENT for a good while.
Programming can be fun again. Film at 11.
dynamically linked /bin and /sbin are dying. HURBLE BURBLE I LIKE POO
After decades of war, it is finally over. Emacs has lost and is dying a bloody death!
The Marketshare of emacs has dropped to just 13%
In fact, its not even Second place anymore, its been overthrown by Kate, the Kde Advanced Text Editor, which has 19% of the market.
Emacs is dying a horrible fate, it is outdated, still uses an Athena GUI while VIM has ports to the Qt and GTK toolkits. With less and less distrobutions shipping emacs and opting for VIM as default, who knows what will happen.
Emacs is very sick, if it is to survive at all it will be with Debian Zealots, along with the gnu/hurd and Aging LISP workstations.
It is a sad they for the Church of Emacs, and its a cold cold day in hell.
When I first saw this I thought "Great, BSD development has started again!", but alas, this article is from a time that is no more, and BSD is dead.
How would you go about doing all this yourself in some Linux distribution?
Just recompile all the system tools with dynamic linkage and you're done?
Anyway, my root partition is only 20 Mb, and that's including root's home(not that there is anything there now...). Do I really have to?
The classic essay on "worse is better" is either misunderstood
at the risk of sounding like a troll, let me just say this is absolute stupidity for 99% of FreeBSD users.
.1% of all FreeBSD users.
I can understand this as an OPTION, but as it stands, users now have to recompile their systems simply to remove this 'feature'.
99% of all FreeBSD users DO NOT want this. Well, ok, 50% don't even know what it is. But if they did....
I just can't believe they would do this... its absolutely stupid. I hope someone knocks some brains into the developers so that they realize their specific situation where this is a good idea applies to about
One of the main advantages of this is that you can replace libraries with security loopholes without having to rebuild everything. There have been several cases of bugs in the standard libraries that have required the statically compiled programs in /bin to be rebuilt.
I thought *nix was designed as:
/ - minimum required to boot and repair system
If your system ever became damaged, you booted to / and fixed it. If / is too large, then audit what's in there and make sure it contains the bare minimum required.
Adding /rescue is unnecessarily cluttering up the system.
Didn't the Amiga Operating System do this nearly two decades ago?
If not, how does this differ?
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
The article clearly relates to an *BSD system, thus it is definitely news for necrophilicas, stuff that is rotten.
#ls /rescue /rescue/failures /rescue/failures/doa
failures
#ls
doa
#ls
BSD
The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,
- Bob Hope
- Buddy Ebsen
- Buddy Hackett
- Barry White
- BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.
Yet another cunting bombshell hit the "community" of *BSD asswipes when IDC recently confirmed that *BSD accounts for less than a fraction of one single puny fucking percent of all servers. Coming hot on the heels of the latest Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more fucking market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is ingesting itself backwards, disappearing up its very own shitter, as fittingly exemplified by coming a piss poor dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a cock-sucking Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any fucking future at all for *BSD because that sorded, shit-filled, mutated testicle of an operating system is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink splashes across the accounting documents like a series of exploding bloodfarts. FreeBSD munches the most ass of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD cuntwipes Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying and its rotting corpse smells worse than a maggot, vomit, shit and piss cocktail.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the fucking numbers, shall we? OK!
OpenBSD wanker Theo states that there are a pathetic 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Oh, God, let's fucking see... The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore it's turd-suckingly obvious that there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore, by simple fucking arithmetic, there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. Surprise fucking surprise, this is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of those arseholes at Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD showed themselves to be a bunch of retarded tossers, went out of business and were taken over by BSDI who sell another special needs OS. Now BSDI is also a miserable failure, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house... pathetic.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily fucking declined in market share. *BSD is where it belongs, at death's door and its long term survival prospects are almost non-fucking-existant. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among moronic, dilettante shitheads. *BSD continues to Chew Satan's Dick And Fuck The Baby Jesus Up The Pooper. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD IS A FUCKING USELESS WASTE OF BITS AND IS DYING LIKE THE DOG THAT IT IS. IT MAKES ME SICK JUST THINKING ABOUT IT.
why don't you just cd back to /usr/gay?
I thought one of the reasons we have /sbin is so that we can run the binaries there without having dynamic libraries involved.
/sbin statically-linked, anyway?
Reasons being:
1) Size: Running in single-user mode or small kernels that don't use dynamically-linked libraries.
2) Security: No risk of library-path-based security exploits.
Am I missing something here? Why isn't
Kris
Kriston
Subject says it all.
I just install over the internet using the latest builds. That way you don't need to recompile until *new* security anouncments come out.
In a startling turn of events today, a previously little-known fact came into the public eye: "*BSD Sux0rs". This came as a complete surprise to the BUWLA, or BSD Users With Large Assholes, as they previously thought that *BSD 0wned.
"You see, even though I have never contributed code to any BSD project, I thought it was my duty to be a big asshole to others which don't use the OS I do, because it just 0wnz.", said one FreeBSD user. "Now that I know it sux0rs, though, I have to go find something else to be an asshole about."
One notorious OpenBSD fanatic known as WideOpen, told reporters, "I have to kill myself. This isn't how it was supposed to happen. My BSD has always been the best, and shouting that opinion in other people's faces at every chance I got has been my only hobby. It was all I ever did. It was what got me out of bed in the morning. Now I have to die. I will jam my bedpost up my ass until I hit my brain. It is the only way to go: BSD style."
In the volatile world of operating systems anything can happen. "At least we don't sux0r as much as Windows users", BigAzz, a relatively well-known NetBSD user said. "Screaming things in people's faces is my calling. Now I need to scream that BSD sux0rs. What a sad world. At least I won't kill myself like those uber-asshole OpenBSD guys. They are just way over the top. Or were, at least."
Nobody knows for sure what the future holds for the state of operating systems, but with Netcraft confirming the sux0r status, *BSD users all over the world will have to stick something else up their asses from now on or risk looking even more gay than they used to.
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
okay, maybe it's just me, and maybe I'm wrong. But I was under the impression that /bin /sbin's primary reason for existance was the same hole this /rescue directory will be filling? And how does it use LESS space (as if space were an issue anymore compared to speed in which case static is USUALLY, not always, better anyway), to simply move the static versions of the binaries in /bin and /sbin to /rescue and add dynamic versions to /bin and /sbin.
/rescue now becomes as fundementally critical as /bin and /sbin have been before it certainly counts as part of the base system. If you move the static binaries, and add something, isn't that BIGGER than just the static binaries?
Since
It is common knowledge that *BSD is dying. Everyone knows that ever hapless *BSD is mired in an irrecoverable and mortifying tangle of fatal trouble. It is perhaps anybody's guess as to which *BSD is the worst off of an admittedly suffering *BSD community. The numbers continue to decline for *BSD but FreeBSD may be hurting the most. Look at the numbers. The erosion of user base for FreeBSD continues in a head spinning downward spiral.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of BSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major marketing surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among hobbyist dilettante dabblers. In truth, for all practical purposes *BSD is already dead. It is a dead man walking.
Fact: *BSD is dying
The End of FreeBSD
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. It's when you get distracted by the politickers
Bury thiS Dead cunt before it stinks up the joint.
I wonder if anyone screaming about what a HORRIBLE idea this is and how it will cause cancer in kittens, has actually tried it? Obviously the FreeBSD developers are not dumb, and root will always be able to get on to use /rescue, and the advantages are a lot more sophisticated than just saving some space on the root partition.
It's pretty knee-jerk to scream about it if you don't actually know how it's been implemented.
J
This patch should have been committed on April 1st right ?
And the delay would be an inside joke....
What We Can Learn From BSD
By Chinese Karma Whore, Version 1.0
Everyone knows about BSD's failure and imminent demise. As we pore over the history of BSD, we'll uncover a story of fatal mistakes, poor priorities, and personal rivalry, and we'll learn what mistakes to avoid so as to save Linux from a similarly grisly fate.
Let's not be overly morbid and give BSD credit for its early successes. In the 1970s, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy both made significant contributions to the computing world on the BSD platform. In the 80s, DARPA saw BSD as the premiere open platform, and, after initial successes with the 4.1BSD product, gave the BSD company a 2 year contract.
These early triumphs would soon be forgotten in a series of internal conflicts that would mar BSD's progress. In 1992, AT&T filed suit against Berkeley Software, claiming that proprietary code agreements had been haphazardly violated. In the same year, BSD filed countersuit, reciprocating bad intentions and fueling internal rivalry. While AT&T and Berkeley Software lawyers battled in court, lead developers of various BSD distributions quarreled on Usenet. In 1995, Theo de Raadt, one of the founders of the NetBSD project, formed his own rival distribution, OpenBSD, as the result of a quarrel that he documents on his website. Mr. de Raadt's stubborn arrogance was later seen in his clash with Darren Reed, which resulted in the expulsion of IPF from the OpenBSD distribution.
As personal rivalries took precedence over a quality product, BSD's codebase became worse and worse. As we all know, incompatibilities between each BSD distribution make code sharing an arduous task. Research conducted at MIT found BSD's filesystem implementation to be "very poorly performing." Even BSD's acclaimed TCP/IP stack has lagged behind, according to this study.
Problems with BSD's codebase were compounded by fundamental flaws in the BSD design approach. As argued by Eric Raymond in his watershed essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, rapid, decentralized development models are inherently superior to slow, centralized ones in software development. BSD developers never heeded Mr. Raymond's lesson and insisted that centralized models lead to 'cleaner code.' Don't believe their hype - BSD's development model has significantly impaired its progress. Any achievements that BSD managed to make were nullified by the BSD license, which allows corporations and coders alike to reap profits without reciprocating the generous goodwill of open-source. Fortunately, Linux is not prone to this exploitation, as it is licensed under the GPL.
The failure of BSD culminated in the resignation of Jordan Hubbard and Michael Smith from the FreeBSD core team. They both believed that FreeBSD had long lost its earlier vitality. Like an empire in decline, BSD had become bureaucratic and stagnant. As Linux gains market share and as BSD sinks deeper into the mire of decay, their parting addresses will resound as fitting eulogies to BSD's demise.
Popular trolling luminaries were stunned that their efforts to destroy slashdot had not only failed but had succeeded in making Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda more popular than ever.
"I've got a beautiful wife, a popular website, $20,000 in assests. What have those trollers got? NOTHING. They've spent all this time generating free entertainment for slashdot subscribers!" said Malda from his mansion on the river.
Stephen King also welcomed the news. "Those trolls have been preaching my death for years! I always get a kick knowing they took the time to find out my right age!"
Trolling lord and legend Trollaxor prophesized the doom of trolling. "The people today suck. Have we seen another classic 'BSD is dying' troll? No. We've seen a bunch of shit from a couple of no hoper crap flooders."
VA's stock jumped 17 cents on the news of trollers declaring war on slashdot and a 150% increase in trolling over the next 18 months.
Cock smoking tea baggers
Oct. 23 -- BSD resumed receiving life-sustaining care yesterday in a
Florida hospital room, but many experts said there is virtually no hope
that it will ever recover, despite it fan boy's desperate hopes.
"IF IT'S over a year, BSD's not ever going to get up," said Fred Plum, a
professor emeritus at Weill Cornell College in New York. "You'd just
don't see it. It just doesn't happen."
BSD, 39, has been in a persistent vegetative
state since its heart stopped for unknown reasons in 1990. A feeding
tube in BSD's stomach was removed this past Wednesday after its husband,
Theo De Ratt, who said his wife had told him she (BSD) would not want to
be kept alive under such circumstances, won a long series of court
battles to have life-sustaining nourishment withdrawn so she (BSD) could
die.
Can someone from Netcraft confirm?
The corpse is getting stiff. Call the meat wagon.
"FreeBSD update" doesn't work for those of us tracking 5.x-RELEASE, and it only provides binary updates for the IA32 (i386-family) port.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Actually, no. Dynamically linked binaries are slower than statically linked ones.
(8-DCS)
I don't want to start a jihad here, but what is the deal with you BSD fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a BSD box (a PIII 800 w/512 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this BSD box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various BSD machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a BSD box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the BSD machines faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that BSD is a "superior" machine.
BSD addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a BSD over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
The Year of Our Lord 2003 has been a particularly bad year for the "B"s,
- Bob Hope
- Buddy Ebsen
- Buddy Hackett
- Barry White
- BSD
This honored list of dead is but a small token of adieu from the many fans of the deceased.These dead were truly some American Icons. They will be missed.
I don't want to start a jihad here, but what is the deal with you abacus fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a abacus box (8 rows, 12 beads each) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running TI99/4a, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this abacus box, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that. In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even Emacs Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various abacus machines, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a abacus box that has run faster than its Windows counterpart, despite the abacus machines faster chip architecture. My ti 99 4/a with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 800 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that an abacus is a "superior" machine.
Abacus addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an abacus over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
no factual evidence to support superiority claims
arrogant attitude
etc.
So don't do anything. You already have
the feature.
How come you have to change your shell? Don't you only have a system failure every once in a great great great while? It seems to me that you don't really have to change anything and once your disks are trashed is having a staticly linked binary in another directory going to cause you grief? I just don't understand the problem here.
The record is clear on one thing: no operating system has ever come back from the grave. Efforts to resuscitate *BSD are one step away from spiritualists wishing to communicate with the dead. As the situation grows more desperate for the adherents of this doomed OS, the sorrow takes hold. An unremitting gloom hangs like a death shroud over a once hopeful *BSD community. The hope is gone; a mournful nostalgia has settled in. Now is the end time for *BSD.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimize doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
I've just installed FreeBSD 5.2 Beta and had a first hand look at this new dynamically linked /bin and /sbin and I have nothing good to say about it.
/recover directory weighs in at a whopping 475.8 MB! This is not tollerable!
/recovery, and I can say for the first time since I discovered FreeBSD, "this sucks," so much so in fact that I am seriously tempted to go back to the Linux and GNU world. At least with their solution, I could say that I expected it.
While it seems to be true that the dynamic situation has cut back these two dirs from ~33 MB to ~4 MB, the new
Add the insulting fact that a corrupted libc now requires that I reboot my machine so that I can use this new behemoth
Sure I could recompile the base system without the dynamic stuff, but like one other poster here said,
"Or, FreeBSD could just NOT BE STUPID OUT OF THE BOX."
I'm sure that you guys thought that this would be a good idea, but in one move you've managed to suckify FreeBSD to the point that it is no better than the many Linux distributions out there.
This is a sad day for me. Although I doubt that my request would be granted, perhaps this could be rectified by offering two versions of the -RELEASE isos, one dynamically linked, and the other not.