Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!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: Re: Shared libraries are not necessary
Keywords: ISC i386 shared libraries
Message-ID: <300@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Date: 6 Jun 91 14:14:02 GMT
References: <223@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <4757@skye.ed.ac.uk> <264@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <9613@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> <275@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <9640@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
Sender: news@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp
Organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology
Lines: 29

In article <9640@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> terryl@sail.LABS.TEK.COM writes:

>     Here's a suggestion (NOT a request): Do a little survey of a company, and
>find out how many workstations are running some sort of windowing system (be it
>X, News, <whatever>).

>     I have been technical, and who said anything about ldd & size??? I happen

You are quite commercial (in itself, not bad), not technical at all.

>What I was responding to was your claim that "only one X
>application runs at a time",

That is not my claim at all.

>     No, you haven't proven this one yet. The ONLY thing that has been proven
>is that executables linked with shared libraries use more VIRTUAL memory than
>statically linked executables, due to the fact that ALL of the text space of
>a shared library gets loaded.

As text (including text of shared libraries) can be demand paged from
executable files, you don't have to provide any swap space for text

>I haven't seen any facts to support the leap
>to PHYSICAL memory, yet.

You had better be technical and accept the result of the measurement.

							Masataka Ohta