Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!cs.titech!titccy.cc.titech!necom830!mohta
From: mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Shared libraries are not necessary
Keywords: ISC i386 shared libraries
Message-ID: <196@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: 16 May 91 05:46:58 GMT
References: <162@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <7690@auspex.auspex.com> <169@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <7762@auspex.auspex.com> <184@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <1991May16.002617.15386@ladc.bull.com>
Sender: news@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp
Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Lines: 36

In article <1991May16.002617.15386@ladc.bull.com>
	fmayhar@hermes.ladc.bull.com writes:

>-> The problem is that NO OS support shared libraries right, perhaps because
>-> there is no way to do so.

>Again I ask, what do you consider a "right" way to implement them?  As opposed
>to what you consider a "wrong" way.  Ignore existing implementations.  I mean,
>in the best of all possible worlds, how should shared libraries be implemented.
>(And don't say that in the best of all possible worlds, shared libraries
>wouldn't exist.  See the last paragraph, below.)

I say, in a good world, shared libraries shouldn't exist.

Because, in a good world, unless someone proof something is really
necessary, it shouldn't exist.

I have already proved that

	1) its space saving is negligible

	2) shared libraries dose not help software version up
	   from /etc/hosts to DNS

So, why you think shared libraries should exist?

>In
>other terms, such as ease of maintenance or disk or memory usage (given
>that shared libraries' instruction space is sharable) it can be much
>more efficient.  This is the tradeoff.

Some claimed that with examples. And, with their examples, I made
measurement and investigation and proved they are wrong. So, there is
no tradeoff, so far.

							Masataka Ohta