Here's a suggestion: what if we make statically linked versions of
some of these basic tools *available*, but *don't* make them
standard. Let people choose for themselves how to manage their
systems, and which risks are worth what costs.
Personally, I am very much opposed to the idea of making statically
linked versions standard. My motherboard is already at its limit for
RAM -- I can't add any more. So a proposal to make the system use a
lot more RAM *by default* is not something I can support.
But as an *option*, I think it would be fine. I agree that it may
have advantages in certain cases (cases that don't apply to me at this
point, but still...).
The only question then becomes, should the statically linked packages
conflict or co-exist with the dynamically linked ones? I think
co-existence is better, but obviously more work. But co-existence
probably increases the chance that the statically linked binaries will
survive a hostile break-in.
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
