On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 11:39 PM, Keith Lofstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:47:43PM -0700, Tim wrote: >> I haven't read the entire (verbose) thread on this topic, but one >> thing I'd like to point out if someone else hasn't: >> >> Using multiple versions of the same library across multiple >> applications costs you more than disk space. It also costs you >> additional memory (RAM) and therefore program exec start time, due to >> greater I/O. > > That is certainly an issue. On the other hand: > > free: > total used free shared buffers cached > Mem: 3114664 794856 2319808 0 57404 404636 > -/+ buffers/cache: 332816 2781848 > Swap: 4032304 0 4032304 > > I've got the RAM (*). What I don't have time for is dependency > hell. Which at best costs me hours at inopportune times, and > at worst means deleting applications that I've invested data in. > All my apps should not be so tightly bound together. That makes > my system too fragile.
Two points: 1. While we could all keep up with Moore's law, should we? Wouldn't it be better if things got cheaper, without changing the minimum hardware? 2. The *huge* Windows security hole was created by extensive backwards compatibility. Make a system compatible with 6 (or 16) year old libraries, get 6 (or 16) year old viruses on those libraries. Things generally change for a reason. -Bop _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
