I did not suggest that. It all depends on the kind of use you put your computer to. In my case, I don't use hundreds of applications, only a few tens, out of which maybe about ten are critical for me. Even in this case, I wont't touch an application which never bothered me. But for those applications which are really critical for me I think I will try and go static as much as possible, since anyway I compile them myself to make sure there are no hidden problems. Moreover, as seen from the few examples discussed in this thread, the big applications don't grow so much with static linking: I got only about 50% increas for lyx and mc. Only xterm grew much more but this is because it starts very small with dynamic linking (most of the procedures it uses are in the different general libraries). I would like to read more documented arguments in the favour of dynamic linking. On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 09:54:34AM -0700, Greg Thomas wrote:
There are places where statically linked executables are beneficial. But you can't possibly justify making every app on your system static? 10 times the size would make my HD explode.
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq