[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Logging practices (and why does it suck in Debian?)

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 10:12:42AM -0600, Tim Uckun wrote:
> Shared libraries may have been a good idea but somehow the implementation 
> in both windows and linux got all weird. I just did a search for *.dll on 
> my windows 2K system and it came back with 4,303 files.

 Doesn't win2k do what you suggest, and have a the dlls for each app in a
directory for that app?

> How much you want 
> to bet half of them have a function to split strings into parts. If the 
> goal of the DLLs was to encourage code reuse it failed, if it was to save 
> disk space it also failed.

 I think statically linking everything is a crappy idea.  With shared
libraries, two processes that have the same library mapped can share that
memory, and instruction cache, space.  It not only saves disk space, it also
makes things run faster.  Especially with the Unix paradigm of having lots
of small programs that all do one thing well, you'd have a ridiculous amount
of memory usage.  Think about the extra IO traffic from loading a statically
linked ls, cat, rm, cp, etc. all the time.

 Also, if there's a bug in shared library code, you have to upgrade every
application statically linked against it instead of just upgrading the
shared library.  Same deal for optimizations, like a 3dnow or altivec libjpeg
or something.
 And BTW, installing stuff in Debian won't break other packages, unless
one package lists the other in its Conflicts: line.  If so, apt won't let
you install both at once.  That's not so bad.  You can tell apt to download
source, build the package, and install it for you if you don't have the lib
versions it was compiled against.

#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X(peter@llama.nslug. , ns.ca)

"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE

Reply to: