🚀 go-pugleaf

>>> So, it should be concluded that there is no usable software upgrade
>>> flexibility in shared libraries.
>
>>OK, a potential real example:
>
>It is rather a minor bug fix than a software upgrade like /etc/hosts to DNS.
>
>I don't deny shared libraries are sometimes (but not always) useful for
>minor bug fix.

Argue syntax all you want.  I'd prefer to call it a "performance enhancement"
rather than a bug fix - using assembly was indeed faster in the 68010 days, so
I would call using it "bug".  Anyhow, the point is, shared libraries may make
distribution easier.  Bug fixes and performance enhancements happen at *every*
release; major new pieces of functionality are relatively rare.  You tell me
which is more important to handle transparently.

>I personally have a workstation, on which, X11R4 is fully installed as
>supplied by the vendor. Still, /usr/bin/X11 consumes only 20MB. My home
>directly consumes 200MB, most of which is data (but not disk consuming
>picture data). So, order of magnitude size saving on 20MB dose not matter
>at all.

Wait a minute here.  Are you saying /usr/bin/X11 consumes only 20MB with things
built with archive libraries?  Sounds like you've just gone through it and
deleted everything just to make your point.  My server's /usr/bin/X11 is close
to 10 MB even with shared libraries.  It would be well over 100 MB otherwise.
That competes pretty well with your 200 MB of data, now, doesn't it?

>What I showed is demerit of shared libraries in some cases, not lack of
>benefit. On the other hand, no one showed shared libraries have benefit on
>memory savings.

Right, but again, just because no one took the trouble to do so doesn't mean
there is never a benefit.

No one denies shared libraries are unnecessary if you live your life around
saving memory and disk space in all other ways.  But X11 is an unfortunate fact
of life these days.  There is a similar flame war in rec.bicycles over whether
or not people should need cars.  The analagous statement being made there is,
just make sure you live within a few miles of where you work, move every time
your work location changes, don't engage in any social behavior that might
require you to get from point A to B at speeds over 30 MPH, or have to cover
distances of more than 100 miles in a day, and you'll never need a car.  For
most people, however, that's simply not practical.

--------------
Marc Sabatella
HP Colorado Language Lab (CoLL)
marc@hpmonk