Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
To: Rick Kelly <>
From: Luke Mewburn <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 12/30/2001 10:55:49
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:59:33PM -0700, Rick Kelly wrote:
  | >Everyone agrees we need statically linked recover tools (they were in the
  | >initial posting as I recall), and static binaries will still be supported
  | >(you can make them, run them etc.).
  | How many megs of stuff does all this add to /? What happened to neat,
  | complete operating systems that can fit easily on a 1 gig disk with room
  | to spare? Or even a 250 meg disk?

This issue has already been addressed in another post of mine, with
message-ID <>. It appears that
you didn't read (all of) that message.

To summarize what I said there;
	A fully dynamic /bin and /sbin and /usr/* (as some parts of
	/usr are currently static), with the necessary .so's moved
	from /usr/lib to /lib, *saves* 10 MB in / and 5 MB in /usr.

	A usable set of statically linked recovery tools can fit in
	between 1.5 MB and 4 MB of disk space.

	These recovery tools could consume 10 MB of space and the
	resultant disk usage would be the same as what is used on
	/ today.

	Therefore, a dynamic /bin and /sbin actually works FOR you
	in saving disk space.

[Next strawman objection that's already been covered in this thread?]