Concise you are not sir. > Gnome is better than Ktorrent anyway.
Okay, now you're not even trying. :) Thomas On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:24:39PM +1000, Nathan Hutchison wrote: > I agree with some of the points you raise Kris, imagine staticly linked KDE > eeeep. > > But on the other hand, a lot of functions that you might like to have > inlined will not be, and a lot of functions will be dynamic, when in fact, > no one is using them, at all. > > So I think the key is controlling what is dynamic and what is static... But > that makes the dev model less minimalist. > > I'm not providing this as any proof, more as trivia, but plan9 is static > linked, reasons like dependency hell are listed, it makes the OS its self > less complicated and the libraries less complicated. > Plan9 gains code reuse using servers and file systems, which to me, is a > little better. > > Still if the static malloc() has some huge flaw, you won't be able to just > hit glibc, and magicly fix it, but how often is an interface fix that simple > anyway. Tracking code use through software can't totaly be solved by dynamic > linking. > > So static linking with nice lean code like plan9, but the problem is, we > wanna use linux and if we want to use expected linux applications, we want > glibc and we want to use gcc and hell soon enough we have a whole gnu > toolchain and the advantages are looking sketchy. > > I once saw an old linux version patched to compile with tcc, I'd love to see > a tight staticly linked distro built with this, tcc would see a more > dramatic performance gain in my imagination. And not having a gcc install > and the faster compile times is swell. > > I agree that static linking is unreasonable with the current flow of things, > but I disagree that going aganst the flow and being unreasonable is bad, its > worth trying simply because not many distros do it. But I do think it would > be good to try and replace it with something else... > > Although I imagine a lot less testing of static linked applications happens > and I'm not sure upstream devs will be happy to help when you post issues > with static linking. > > Anywho chill out Kris, it might seem like a subject has no room for debate, > but every idea has the right to breath. I'm skeptical that just taking > ubuntu and then linking it staticly would make it faster (in fact when I was > toying with prelink I benchmarks showed my system was slower.). But with > love and care it's possible, and it might at least solve some package > managment issues, and decress tool chain bloat? > > shared libraries are obviously a good idea until you’ve actually used > them. then whether it’s obvious or not that they’re a bad idea is mostly a > matter of how close you are to trying to get them to work. > > - Rob Pike > > > Minimalism can be applied to many aspects of a distro. > > Also chroots are less complicated with static linking. > > Worth reading: > http://people.redhat.com/drepper/no_static_linking.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_hell > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prelinking > http://anselmgarbe.blogspot.com/2008/02/linking_15.html > http://blogs.sun.com/rvs/entry/what_does_dynamic_linking_and > > Lots of ideas for and aganst, come to think of it, I'm not sure if Kris was > saying that static linking has no merit or mearly that it's not > minimalism.... Etherway I think the debate has a way to go. > > Gnome is better than Ktorrent anyway. > > 2009/5/23 Kris Maglione <maglion...@gmail.com> > > > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote: > > > >> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:17:18AM +0200, pancake wrote: > >> > >>> http://detaolb.sourceforge.net/ > >>> > >>> Just my first time I see this minimal devel distro :) > >>> > >> > >> uClibc is by no means minimal, even though it's smaller than glibc. > >> > >> In my opinion a minimal system has all libraries in source code form > >> and statically links and compiles them with the programme's source code > >> (much like templates in C++). You can do a lot of optimisations using > >> this approach (constant propagation and dead code elimination, inlining > >> etc.), the programmes can be sequentially read from disk and will be > >> much smaller. > >> > > > > I don't know why I'm getting into this. I can't help but suspect that this > > is troll bait, but I don't know what goes on on this list. What you just > > said makes no sense to me. None of that has anything to do with minimalism. > > Efficiency, maybe. Disk efficiency, certainly not. There are reasons that > > most embedded systems dynamically link everything: it saves disk space. And, > > as for the read speed, dynamically linked libs are mmaped (on most systems, > > anyway) and shared between processes, which means, of course, that they're > > read into memory once. Statically linked binaries certainly might be read > > faster. They might not. It depends on too many variables to make blanked > > statements. > > > > Well, at any rate, I've just reread your post, and realized that that kind > > of nonsensical tripe (strewn with unconnected buzz words) can't be anything > > but troll bait. Nevertheless, I've gone to all the trouble of composing this > > rant, so I may as well send it. > > > > -- > > Kris Maglione > > > > And the users exclaimed with a laugh and a taunt: "It's just what we > > asked for but not what we want." > > > > > >
