Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!decuac!hussar.dco.dec.com!mjr
From: mjr@hussar.dco.dec.com (Marcus J. Ranum)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared libraries are not necessary
Keywords: ISC i386 shared libraries
Message-ID: <1991May16.173305.11403@decuac.dec.com>
Date: 16 May 91 17:33:05 GMT
References: <1991May16.002617.15386@ladc.bull.com> <196@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <1991May16.083123.26599@kithrup.COM>
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp., Washington Ultrix Resource Center
Lines: 23

sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

[Re: space savings of shared libraries]
>>	1) its space saving is negligible
>
>[....]  It can easily amount to *many* megabytes, with X11,
>toolkits, and the like.  *Each* X application gets many, many Kbytes' worth
>of code; putting this in a shared library greatly reduces amount of disk
>space.

	Heaving X windows out or putting it on a diet would *REALLY* reduce
the amount of required disk space. To forestall flamage about all of X'
vaunted "functionality" take a look at the size of MGR and the "functionality"
it offers before you follow-up, please.

	Using shared libraries to cure X-windows bloat is really stupid, if
you consider that you'll further slow stuff down (depending on the shlib
implementation) and you'll still have X slowing your system down, and it'll
take a huge amount of effort to get the shared libs *right* - effort that
could be spent on a smaller more efficient user interface, if that is what
you need.

mjr.