>Was that intended as a joke?
I'm sure it was.
>Static linking introduces horrors that are far harder to solve than
>any of the issues I mentioned with dynamic linking. You can't patch,
>for one thing.
For one, you could not have pluggable modules.
But yes, having no shared libraries means you have to replace all binaries
when you find a bug in libc.
Guys, guys. Let's not take the "when all you have is a hammer, the whole
world looks like a nail" approach. Not everything revolves around the OS.
James is right. And so are you Casper, but that's for the OS. But one size
does not fit all, and let's not forget that the OS is useless without
software to run on it. And software should not cause a headache at install
time.
People want to run software on a computer and get stuff done, not be stuck
figuring out which of the 568 dependencies they have to install, just to get
a piece of software installed, so that they could get something they want to
do done. That's why Microsoft managed to popularize the personal computer.
I mean, come on. When I want to build a DNS server using the latest version
of BIND, I just want to install the package(s) and have the thing start
serving out replies to queries, not be stuck figuring out which revision of
the .so libraries I need to have, and where they need to be. Same for any
other application really.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
