Shared Libraries YO!!!

[Marc Sabatella]

>With shared libraries, you can do "minor improvement of libraly" (including
>minor bug fix and performance enchancement) with relatively small amount of 
>distributed storage.
>
>I can't understand why you mention transparency here.

Becuase that is what I am concerned with, not storage.  The idea is, you give
the customer a new library (or it just comes along when he updates to a new
version of the OS or product supplying the library) and suddenly, applications
he had already compiled, or had picked up from a third party, start working
"better".  No recompile or relink necessary.  Without shared libraries, a
customer would have to recompile/relink his application, or convince the third
party to do so, in order to take advantage of the improvement.  That is what I
mean by "transparent".

>>My server's /usr/bin/X11 is close
>>to 10 MB even with shared libraries.
>
>Perhaps because shared libraries dose not save so much disk space, or perhaps
>because your /usr/bin/X11 is deseparetely bloated with totally unnecessary
>tools.
>
>Anyway, my /usr/bin/X11 is sufficient for you as it even has xclock.

xclock is sufficient for me, but not for the other members of my cluster.

Our shared libraries do save disk space.  The average Motif application saves
over a megabyte.  I guarantee you would not not fit 60+ Motif applications in
under 100 MB without shared libraries.  Do you need 60+ Motif applications?
Well, I know you don't, and I probably don't either, but get enough people in
the cluster, ones that, for better or for worse, like wizzy toys, and you'll
need them.

You say the problem is that the vendors are letting customers get away with
using pigs like X.  Be realistic.  Remember what happened to Sun when they
tried to say their customers didn't need X?  How much longer do you suppose
they'll get away with not shipping Motif?  I give them about 6 months.  It is
the height of arrogance for a company to tell their customers what they need.
As the saying goes, when they say "jump", we have to say "how high".

>The problem is not that no one post the measurement result but that no one
>seemed to have measured the actual merit of shared libraries on memory
>saving.
>
>Have you measure it, or are you just thinking someone should have measured it,
>or are you merely using your common sense (to be scientific, you shouldn't
>rely on your common sense)?

No I haven't measured it.  But that doesn't prevent me from believing it is
possible.

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