Shared libraries are not necessary

[Masataka Ohta]

In article <9659 at sail.LABS.TEK.COM> terryl at sail.LABS.TEK.COM writes:

>     Oh, yes it was. It wasn't your only claim, just one of many. To wit, see
>article with Message-ID of 264 at titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp; you start the article
>thusly:

>	Now, perhaps, it is time to show that shared libraries often increase
                                                               ^^^^^
>	memory consumption.

You should have quote my post from the beginning, as suggested in
news.announce.newusers.

>>>What I was responding to was your claim that "only one X
>>>application runs at a time",
>>
>>That is not my claim at all.

Thus, my claim is, "when only one X application runs at a time, as is often
the case, then memory consumption increases with shared libraries".

Don't distort what I wrote.

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

>     What measurements??

Meaningful measurements.

>     For example, the X server (listed as X in the above listing), consumes a
>little under 8 Mbytes of VIRTUAL memory, but is using only a little over 2
>Mbytes of PHYSICAL memory, a little more than 25 % of its VIRTUAL size.

A totally meaningless measurement.

>Unfortunately, there is no ready (or easy way) to tell how much of the PHYSICAL
>memory is text vs. data.

Thus, as you know, your measurement is meaningless.

On the other hand, what I measured and post is the code size of binaries
and shared libraries, which is meaningful.

>     This will be my last post on this. When people have to resort to lying to
>prove their point, it's not worth my time or effort to respond to it.

Nice, you don't have to lie anymore. Close your mouth and open your eyes.

						Masataka Ohta