Argument list too long.

[Sean Estabrooks]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:55:08 +0200 (CEST)
Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> wrote:

> >      But this is _exactly_ the point that goes against your own argument.   If 
> > you accept that there has to be some upper limit then a properly written
> > script will always have to guard against such buffer overflows.   No matter
> > what limit you pick.
> 
> I'm not arguing that if you increase the limit, there's no limit anymore. 
> (Doh!) The only thing I'm trying to say is that maybe after 10 years (or 
> when was this 128Kb limit added?) memory isn't much a problem now and for 
> the common case 128Kb could easily be 256Kb without anyone noticing (and 
> without causing any more problems).
> 
> And as you say most people wouldn't have this problem, well, increasing it 
> to 256Kb will not cause any extra problems either. It's not that you are 
> obliged to fill the 256Kb or anything. No overhead.
> 
> So, since you haven't had any problems with it, why are you against it ?
> 

Hey Dag,

I'm not exactly against it, but here are my reservations..... 

 - there isn't any dire or pressing need
 - it would mask bugs in broken scripts instead of fixing them
 - scripts that run on Redhat shouldn't break on other systems.
     (ie. this would be a Linus change not a RH change)
 
It's not even clear that it would be a good thing if done by the
kernel developers but i promise not to riot in the streets if they
decide to make the bump ;o)  

Really i'm just lobbying for people to get more comfortable with 
the solutions provided in the article you quoted.   Now... i'm about
to run out of buffer space for this argument ;o)

Cheers,
Sean.