*BSD News Article 91367


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!enews.sgi.com!ix.netcom.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!metro.atlanta.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!192.220.251.22!netnews.nwnet.net!nwnet.net!not-for-mail
From: aad@nwnet.net (Anthony Talltree)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc
Subject: Re: BSDI 3.0 Impressive
Date: 18 Mar 1997 17:44:43 -0800
Organization: NorthWestNet, Bellevue, WA, USA, Earth
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <5gngeb$ih4@lovecraft.nwnet.net>
References: <332849E6.71CA@cet.co.jp> <5giab8$l8h@vanbc.wimsey.com> <5gibgj$bu7@arrow.va.pubnix.com> <5gkf8g$sa8@picasso.op.net>
Reply-To: aad@nwnet.net
NNTP-Posting-Host: lovecraft.nwnet.net
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:6365

>Considering the system overhead of dynamic linked libraries compared to
>BSD/OS shared libraries, what is the advantage of dynamic linked
>libraries?

One very real advantage is that one need not relink every binary that one's
built every time the OS is updated.  With each release since 2.0, brand new
libraries have been included, and old binaries continue to use the old
libraries.  Why is that a problem?  New patches don't patch the old libraries,
and the old libraries are missing any improvements made in the new OS version.