> What is the drop at 9 epoch? That one looks fun; I am
> guessing it is the move to glibc 2.x?
Yes, it appears to be - the first one is linked against libc.so.5
and an earlier dynamic linker I don't have.
This might put a different spin in the size increase, that it is glibc
* Alfred M. Szmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Would be interesting to see how normal hard drive sizes have grown in
> that time as well.
Of course hard drive growth is fast; but not everything is as fast;
e.g. seek time and memory latency.
> But these graphs, while quite fun to watch, do not
Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote on 27-01-08 01:29:
> Hi,
>
> Out of a bit of boredom (and avoiding trying to fix a VHDL problem)
> I decided to graph the sizes of a few of the binaries from coreutils,
> as packaged by debian over time (I've included fileutils/shellutils).
>
Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote on 27-01-08 01:29:
Hi,
Out of a bit of boredom (and avoiding trying to fix a VHDL problem)
I decided to graph the sizes of a few of the binaries from coreutils,
as packaged by debian over time (I've included fileutils/shellutils).
At:
http://www.treblig.org/pics/
Hi,
Out of a bit of boredom (and avoiding trying to fix a VHDL problem)
I decided to graph the sizes of a few of the binaries from coreutils,
as packaged by debian over time (I've included fileutils/shellutils).
At:
http://www.treblig.org/pics/debianbinarysizes.png
you can see a graph showing
