3 ms·
"Sorry, but our operating systems and programs we run on them are mostly composed of shared libraries. The debate of either they're good or not is largely point
by sedachv 15y ago
"Sorry, but our operating systems and programs we run on them are mostly composed of shared libraries. The debate of either they're good or not is largely pointless unless we migrate to different OS designs."
What do you mean when you say that the operating system is dynamically linked? I don't even think Linux kernel modules count. I run OpenBSD, and all the base packages are statically linked. Many applications (esp. graphical ones) are dynamically linked, but there's not many reasons they have to be. The biggest one is bloatware libraries full of buggy crap you don't want or need. But dynamic linking isn't a solution for that problem.
- old-gregg 15y ago"What do you mean when you say that the operating system is dynamically linked?" By that I mean this: grab a debugger, attach to a random process you have running. Pause and look at the current stack: you'll notice that the code you're looking at resides in a so. And everything on the current call stack is all shared code, loads of it, sandwiched between the kernel at the bottom and a thin layer of hosting executable on top. Here's another way to look at it: http://paste.ofcode.org/diZdtuH8uPs2UBWHEvTYWh http://paste.ofcode.org/diZdtuH8uPs2UBWHEvTYWh (try to ram all that code into gnome-panel itself and ship with next Ubuntu - see what users will tell you) One more time: shared code is absolutely essential. Only "one-process-per-machine" datacenter approach can do without. That's why there is no Java on the desktop.