Most of you probably know this, but what you are talking about is the difference between static and dynamic linking. When using static linking, all the libraries needed by the program are inserted into the executable code. Depending upon the environment on the target machine, statically linked programs usually run faster, are more portable, but require more disk and memory space.
Wayne On 03/18/2014 04:26 PM, Keith Lofstrom wrote: > The justification for dependencies in software packages is that > they can be shared, saving RAM and disk space. But disks and > RAM is growing very large, while not much is actually shared. > Besides many instances of the same program sharing the runtime > code, do programs really need to share anything, beyond agreeing > on standard interfaces for the display manager and the operating > system? > > Whenever I find myself in dependency hell while installing an > infrequently used program, I wish for a compile or install switch > that downloads every oddball library that the program requires, > and merges them all into one big binary blob that uses the simplest > possible interfaces with my existing OS. It might chew up more > resources when it is running, but I would rather buy another > stick of RAM than upgrade a whole operating system, along with > the hundreds of little programs that I wrote for myself and would > rather not recompile. > > But then, I suppose most people don't have a 40 year accumulation > of little programs; ditching every app and starting over with > new versions may not be that painful for them. They may not even > use that many apps. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
