On 4/23/20 4:45 AM, lego12...@yandex.ru wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:24:07PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> FWIW, I do know there are situations where static linking is the right >> thing to do. > > If you project require strong security, than it would be simpler to use > static linking. > If you have many instances of the same program or have many shortlived > processes of the > same program, than static linking is better(for ram and speed). > > Michael, just read about history of shared object. That was not technical > decision, > that was marketing decision. >
I might believe you about speed, but not about RAM. Memory usage goes up with static linking because you've got multiple copies of the same thing loaded into memory. And that makes the performance argument tricky as well: you're saving a bit of CPU time on function calls, but maybe your cache is also filled up with those same copies of the same stuff, and as a result things actually get slower as you hit the disk to load the 22nd copy of a library. Ignoring that, the faster load time and speed improvements were minor to begin with. It's not worth making your system annoying to manage. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to shoot yourself in the foot, but you shouldn't be calling Alessandro or the QA team incompetent (that's my bit...) unless you have some strong new evidence that static linking improves things in a general-purpose linux distro.
