Re: [dev] Detaolb

From: Kris Maglione <>
Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 07:01:55 -0400

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
>On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 11:17:18AM +0200, pancake wrote:
>> Just my first time I see this minimal devel distro :)
>uClibc is by no means minimal, even though it's smaller than glibc.
>In my opinion a minimal system has all libraries in source code form
>and statically links and compiles them with the programme's source code
>(much like templates in C++). You can do a lot of optimisations using
>this approach (constant propagation and dead code elimination, inlining
>etc.), the programmes can be sequentially read from disk and will be
>much smaller.

I don't know why I'm getting into this. I can't help but suspect
that this is troll bait, but I don't know what goes on on this
list. What you just said makes no sense to me. None of that has
anything to do with minimalism. Efficiency, maybe. Disk
efficiency, certainly not. There are reasons that most embedded
systems dynamically link everything: it saves disk space. And,
as for the read speed, dynamically linked libs are mmaped (on
most systems, anyway) and shared between processes, which means,
of course, that they're read into memory once. Statically linked
binaries certainly might be read faster. They might not. It
depends on too many variables to make blanked statements.

Well, at any rate, I've just reread your post, and realized that
that kind of nonsensical tripe (strewn with unconnected buzz
words) can't be anything but troll bait. Nevertheless, I've gone
to all the trouble of composing this rant, so I may as well send

Kris Maglione
And the users exclaimed with a laugh and a taunt: "It's just what we
asked for but not what we want."
Received on Sat May 23 2009 - 11:01:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat May 23 2009 - 11:12:01 UTC