> So, since you think you can do better, what would you do
> differently? Split the page up? That would waste people's time.
> Add more information? I'm fine with that -- "send code", as they
> say.
There's always the approach of "one big page with an index at the top
where the index links point to anchors within the page."
(I'm not saying there's a natural way to split the page up, but you
can split the page up without increasing latency, although it won't be
quite the same as splitting it up the normal way.)
In another message, you wrote:
> If I was making a distribution, *I* would reserve some UIDs <100.
> The chances that you'll run into a conflict in an upgrade a very
> small. I'd include a program to check for a conflict, and reassign
> the existing UID.
Of course, once a site starts making use of network filesystems, it
doesn't matter what UIDs are "reserved" by new operating systems, and
no simple tool can make reassigning UIDs easy. Eventually someone is
going to feel some pain. It happens.
