Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utcs.toronto.edu!cks
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
From: cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann)
Subject: Re: Shared libraries (was Re: Window system bashing (was Re: X11 bashing))
Message-ID: <1991Apr19.173310.8470@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
Organization: Ziebmef home away from home
References: <26550@adm.brl.mil> <97@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <1991Apr15.173955.7909@athena.mit.edu> <1991Apr15.224311.3950@ida.liu.se>
Date: 19 Apr 91 21:33:10 GMT
Lines: 18

jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes (or at least I think
he does, in a quoted article:
| It is my impression that the Unix industry has, in general, come to
| agreement on the idea that shared libraries are a good thing, simply
| because they make more memory available to the user while having little
| or no negative side-effects.

 Don't forget "if implemented carefully and well". Unfortunately, it
seems dangerous to rely on this happening -- compare the startup
times of the same application linked statically and with shared
libraries on SunOS for a drastic illustration (SunOS also seems to
have problems fork()ing dynamically-linked programs, but I don't
have a handy test program to check this again).

--
	"This will be dynamically handled, possibly correctly, in 4.1."
		- Dan Davison on streams configuration in SunOS 4.0
cks@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu	           ...!{utgpu,utzoo,watmath}!utgpu!cks