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.