From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Nov 10 19:10:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (adsl-63-206-90-77.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.206.90.77]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969EA37B4CF for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:10:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eAB3Fp909237; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:15:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200011110315.eAB3Fp909237@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: arch@freebsd.org Cc: dillon@earth.backplane.com Subject: Re: The shared /bin and /sbin bikeshed In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:57:45 PST." <200011110257.eAB2vj034258@vashon.polstra.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:15:51 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > But to keep things in perspective, saving RAM isn't really the main > advantage of shared libraries. Their value lies in other areas. They > save a lot of disk space; they allow bugs to be fixed in many programs > at once via the installation of a single repaired library; and they > provide the flexibility of run-time modules ("plug-ins"), which are > used by more and more software packages these days. It would be interesting to know whether the speed overhead (if any) for = PIC code is offset by the improved cache behaviour as well. -- = =2E.. every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message