Shared libraries are not necessary

[Mike McNally]

In article <196 at titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>, mohta at necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta) writes:
|> I have already proved that
|> 
|> 	1) its space saving is negligible

I have counterexamples.  Does that invalidate the proof?

|> 
|> 	2) shared libraries dose not help software version up
|> 	   from /etc/hosts to DNS

When did this particular issue become the critical feature of a shared
library implementation?  Does this mean that if I have an mechanism for
shared libraries that makes everyone happy and solves the Mideast crisis,
but doesn't help software go from /etc/hosts to DNS, then I should dump
it?

|> Some claimed that with examples. And, with their examples, I made
|> measurement and investigation and proved they are wrong. So, there is
|> no tradeoff, so far.

OK, here are my numbers (roughly; the machine is down now so I'll have to get
the real ones later):  I have sharable libc, libtermcap, libm, libcurses, 
libX11, libXt, libXaw, libXext, and libXmu, and a bunch of clients (xterm,
xclock, twm, bitmap, and a couple others) linked to them.  The savings is 
about 1.5meg, taking into account the fact that all those libraries will be
loaded.  Prove me wrong.  Oh, and I don't have the server linked shared
(against libc), nor are my utilites shared yet.  I guess you'll tell me that'll
just make it worse.

-- 
* "In the Spirit as my automatics,  *                              Mike McNally
* Lystra and Zelda were one third   *                                    Coolie
* as large as the infinite Cosmos." *                  DEC Western Software Lab
*              --- D. S. Ashwander  *                       mcnally at wsl.dec.com