Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!charyb!dan
From: dan@kfw.COM (Dan Mick)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared libraries are not necessary
Message-ID: <1991Jun9.223900.7413@kfw.COM>
Date: 9 Jun 91 22:39:00 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> <300@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <9659@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: dan@kfw.com (Dan Mick)
Organization: KFW Corporation, Newbury Park, CA
Lines: 25

In article <9659@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> terryl@sail.LABS.TEK.COM writes:
>In article <300@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
>>
>>That is not my claim at all.
>
>     Oh, yes it was. It wasn't your only claim, just one of many. To wit, see
>article with Message-ID of 264@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp; you start the article
>thusly:
>
>	Now, perhaps, it is time to show that shared libraries often increase
>	memory consumption.
>
>	If, as if often the case, we are running only one X applications, you
>	lose.

Ah, yes, the age-old, time-honored tradition of "selective electronic
argument" falls to the reproducibility of computer-stored statements once
again...

Thanks, Terry...you've just conclusively proved to me that everything
M. Ohta says is to be ignored on its face.  Besides being incomprehensibly
phrased, it's also allowed to be self-inconsistent *and* abrasive.

Go away, Masataka.  Or should I say "You had better go away" to retort with
that attitude of omniscience you're so fond of transmitting?