Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!hplabs!hpfcso!mjs
From: mjs@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Sabatella)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared Libraries YO!!!
Message-ID: <18370003@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM>
Date: 20 Jun 91 19:50:32 GMT
References: <1991Jun10.154811.11965@infonode.ingr.com>
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Lines: 35

> As for the software upgrade flexibility, its only example, /etc/hosts to
> DNS, was denied . . . 
> So, it should be concluded that there is no usable software upgrade
> flexibility in shared libraries.

OK, a potential real example:

In comp.sys.hp, people have been noticing printf() prints floating point
numbers really slowly on a 68040.  This is because the conversion routines use
the old packed decimal instructions that no longer exist.  To fix this problem,
all we will need to do is ship a new shared C library - no need for customers
to recompile or relink.

>           Are there any natural and common configuration where disk
> consumption really matters?

Have you ever had to make purchasing decisions?  My guess is no, since this is
incredibly common.  Again, considering most of the world really does use X, we
are talking about an order of magnitude size savings here.  This makes a HUGE
difference.

As for the memory savings, well, I am still unconvinced either way.  You've
shown one set of numbers suggesting the savings doesn't exist if all you use is
xterm.  I have no trouble believing that.  I am one one of those who fits that
category (OK, I also have an xclock in the corner), so I probably don't get
that benefit.  But looking around me, I see that I am atypical - most people
around here really do have lots of whizzy things up at once.  The fact that
none have bothered to compute the numbers and presented them to you in a manner
you can accept should not be construed as saying the savings doesn't exist.

--------------
Marc Sabatella (marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com)
Disclaimers:
	2 + 2 = 3, for suitably small values of 2
	Bill and Dave may not always agree with me