On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Jim Gettys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My point is really to compare apples to apples; generally, once running > X, you also are interested in running GTK/Qt based toolkits, which may > have stronger requirements on libc than X does. So blindly saying > "uClibc is smaller, so it must save space" doesn't necessarily follow. > Some more careful analysis is in order.
You're right. I meant to imply that there are situations where that makes a difference, not that it is universally a good idea. I personally am looking at doing a Linux 2.4.x + uClibc + KDrive (or Xorg; you have me reconsidering now) + FLTK setup, without Gtk or Qt present at all. Obviously, that is not the normal situation for most people. > So make the configuration static, or even build Xorg statically. I assume then that the problems I read about had more to do with the particular build that some distribution shipped than anything else. Fair enough. :-) > When keithp and I were working on Kdrive on the iPAQ years ago, we had > 16 meg of RAM. I think the IBM watch had 8 meg. > > But that isn't where most of the RAM goes anyway. Let's see, firefox-bin is "only" using 237m on my primary system right now. (In its defense, I have sixteen tabs open.) So, I have *no* idea what you're talking about ... ;-) -- William Tracy [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vice President, Cal Poly Linux Users' Group http://www.cplug.org _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg