<snip>
And all of this falls out of deciding that when people say "reliability," they don't *really* mean that; they really mean "security." And when they say "performance", they don't *really* mean that; they really meant to say "security" (even though they didn't, which ought to be a hint that it wasn't what they meant).
If it is a hint then open reasoning is on the table. There is a type of security in obscurity, as witnessed by the discovery of embedded exploits which, by needs, must be addressed by enterprise.
Claim was made that Debian switched from using Bash as the default shell (!= "default login shell", by the way) "because security." When the declared reasons didn't have the word "security" anywhere.
But I guess that since *everything* is really computer security, then the plans must be already well under way for Debian to recompile everything, from the kernel to Grub to all the scripting engines during the boot process.
I'm not privy to the inner workings of Debian plans, but all the best planners, I think from the logistic perspective, work on failover and have a contingency for rapid deployment in case a primary plan doesn't work as expected and does indeed fail in service. This is what government brings to the table that enterprise does not; the willingness to spend large amounts of money on two radically different plans with identical aims. So if Debian does not have a fully formulated plan to have a compile at runtime OS, I'd bet there is a set of schema on someone's drawing board somewhere. -- Sent via K-9 Mail.