Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!world!bzs From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Shared libraries (was Re: Window system bashing (was Re: X11 bashing)) Message-ID: Date: 28 Apr 91 05:08:04 GMT References: <1991Apr19.005739.2321@servalan.uucp> <135@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <1991Apr25.175847.21613@kithrup.COM> Sender: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) Organization: The World Lines: 24 In-Reply-To: sef@kithrup.COM's message of 25 Apr 91 17: 58:47 GMT From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) >Using shared libraries dropped SCO's distribution from 60 or so floppies to >about 25 or 30 (they're compressed, as well; the actual floppy count is 13 >or 15, I believe; I doubled for that previous estimate). > >Want to tell me again that shared libraries are bad? Well, there's more to life than saving disk space. Shared libraries also incur a performance hit which varies on different systems (and applications on the same system, for example.) Try running some job using shared and statically linked libraries on various systems. I've seen from 5-10% to 75% performance degradations (granted the last was odd enough to look into, but it was there.) Something that would be nice would be a way to unshare an application from a vendor's binary distribution. Then no one would have any complaints. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD