4 ms·
If you took the "one tool one purpose" thing to an extreme, you'd only have one binary with OpenSSL compiled in, right? Given some familiarity with the suckles
by marmaduke 10y ago
If you took the "one tool one purpose" thing to an extreme, you'd only have one binary with OpenSSL compiled in, right?
Given some familiarity with the suckless ideology, it seems that it is the simplicity of static linking, not conservative use of disk space, which is its virtue. For, if anyone groks the tool chain perfectly but lacks disk space, I'd like to hear the secret.
- Retr0spectrum 10y ago> you'd only have one binary with OpenSSL compiled in So then any process that wanted to use crypto etc. would have to call this binary? That just seems like a very inefficient way if implementing dymanic linking...
- JdeBP 10y agoYou have the wrong metric. The metric should be the efficiency of the mechanism in implementing SSL. Now look at things like Gerrit Pape's sslio , http://smarden.org/ipsvd/sslio.8.html http://smarden.org/ipsvd/sslio.8.html . Note that the subject at hand purportedly uses several of Gerrit Pape's other tools.