From owner-freebsd-security Wed Apr 22 15:31:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA18580 for freebsd-security-outgoing; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:31:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA18516 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 22:31:01 GMT (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id PAA01154; Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:25:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199804222225.PAA01154@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: "John S. Dyson" cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), woods@zeus.leitch.com, freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Static vs. dynamic linking (was Re: Using MD5 insted of DES ...) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 22 Apr 1998 17:19:52 CDT." <199804222219.RAA06214@dyson.iquest.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 15:25:56 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > I suggest that our primary platform market is servers, and optimizing > for those is useful for reviews (remember the 64MB fiasco???) If > we all decide that it is generally good to make binaries shared, we > need to make intelligent exceptions. I'll scream terribly loudly > if we even passingly consider making a shell shared!!! Shells > are almost never advatageously made shared. I think this basically says that we need to make shared executables faster. The nuisance component with static binaries is rather high. 8( -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message