Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
On Dec 14, 2007 3:18 PM, Kent Borg <[hidden email]> wrote: > P.S. It is almost as if shared libraries were the big mistake, that the > savings came at such a high price in version hell, that we are willing > to duplicate the whole OS to dig ourselves out. This is clearly not the > entire story, but it is part of it. You bring up an interesting point. The energy saved by utilizing common libraries is sometimes lost down the road when a bug creeps into your application through this means. And tracking it down is very tough, since you may not be familiar with the code. When I cam over to Linux from Windows in the 90's, I was also confused that programs couldn't merely just "run". You needed to have the binary built to utilize the correct version of libc, and it needed such and such libraries, and it would only run on this or that distribution. It was tough, and I was very frustrated. It is just one more example of physics at work here guys. Energy is neither lost or destroyed ... it is merely transferred :-) However, any developer at any time can choose to build their program statically, and I have done this a fair amount for my shared web hosting services. This allows you to utilize whatever you want and not depend on the final host where that binary will run (expect for perhaps libc)... -- Kristian Erik Hermansen "I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious." -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |