on Wed, May 22, 2002, Petro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 03:16:57AM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > on Tue, May 21, 2002, Petro ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
<...> > > > Is this the first time someone has brought this up? > > Puhleaze: > > There's a bunch of people here acting like they've never heard of > the idea, and the only somewhat reasonable excuse I've heard for not > doing it is "It's a lot of work", which lead me to believe it hadn't > been discussed here. > > > http://www.google.com/search?q=debian+statically+linked+root+shell > > So it has been brought up before, over 2 years ago, and it's still > wrong? The point was that the answer to your question ("Is this the first...") is readily available from the usual place. Your assignment is to read the earlier posts and either: - Formulate a previously unaddressed reason root should have a statically linked shell, rather than pollute the list with largely irrelevent dialog. - Understand why the current alternative(s) are sufficient. - Summarize findings to list and quietly exit the topic. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Moderator, Free Software Law Discussion mailing list: http://lists.alt.org/mailman/listinfo/fsl-discuss/
pgpMgZZCjmb1h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
