Date: Wed, 22 Apr 1998 16:42:52 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>, 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 ...) Message-ID: <199804222242.QAA06613@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199804222225.PAA01154@dingo.cdrom.com> References: <199804222219.RAA06214@dyson.iquest.net> <199804222225.PAA01154@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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( If we want truly dynamic libraries on the x86, we're stuck. However, we could go down the road BSDi took, and make the libraries sort-of shared, but it's a pain in the butt. (If you've ever dealt with the shlib scheme you'd agree. :( ) I for one don't think static binaries are a nuisance at all. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe security" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199804222242.QAA06613>