Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.windows.x.i386unix:1579 comp.os.386bsd.questions:2526 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk!lessen From: lessen@axion.bt.co.uk (Lee Essen) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x.i386unix,comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: XFree1-2 + 386BSD performance Date: 18 May 1993 08:13:44 GMT Organization: BT Laboratories Lines: 17 Distribution: world Message-ID: <1ta5ro$ip5@zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk> References: <vp.737330368@news.forth.gr> <hastyC6zqMr.GDo@netcom.com> <C72C05.B1B@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> <1t9mg3INNoep@srvr1.engin.umich.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: jammy.axion.bt.co.uk In article <1t9mg3INNoep@srvr1.engin.umich.edu>, scottl@engin.umich.edu (scott allen long) writes: |> In article <C72C05.B1B@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes: |> >A couple of Xterms eat up *megabytes*? I knew X was fat, but this is just |> >downright ridiculous. What's it doing with all that memory? |> >-- |> |> It's called static libraries. Take a look at the program called 'xlogo'. |> 500k+ to display an X in a window. Sick, huh? btw, how is the work on |> shared libraries coming? I think this unquestionably a big argument in favour of shared libraries, some of use can afford to have 32 Meg systems, and even those that do probably dont like the idea of 28 Meg of it filled with several copies of the static libraries. Why is there so much 'anti-shared-library' feeling? Lee.