Subject: Re: why /bin and /sbin static
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
Date: 03/18/2001 12:30:11
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 08:35:05PM +0100, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> trying to make code smaller is always GOOD. talking about that my computer
> is not the last rocket with 1GB RAM is a poor excuse. just compare
> 16kB /bin/ls filesize with >200kB of static linked one!
> this is over 10 times larger!!!!
Oh, it gets worse than that, too. The fact that those programs are
statically linked is the sole excuse for *not* doing dynamic loading in
libc -- e.g. for nsswitch and locale stuff.
I say, dynamic loading is the way to go. This isn't Ultrix.