From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1516A138350 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A66FEE09BF; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DD02E085A for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 21:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead? To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <20200422162629.GA4639@legohost> <20200422180825.GA12885@legohost> <82271c88-bd0f-aa50-8155-e7028305e0ef@gentoo.org> <1ed023fa-1785-5951-127e-c8efc2895330@gentoo.org> <20200423084546.GD16612@legohost> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: <6723c49f-424e-8d77-2001-1415a50309d4@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 17:07:48 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200423084546.GD16612@legohost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 55cdf5cf-f668-4c0e-b313-9cfdfdc3c7d1 X-Archives-Hash: 41b595fc5542c0b5a786c99269078b0d On 4/23/20 4:45 AM, lego12239@yandex.ru wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:24:07PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> FWIW, I do know there are situations where static linking is the right >> thing to do. > > If you project require strong security, than it would be simpler to use static linking. > If you have many instances of the same program or have many shortlived processes of the > same program, than static linking is better(for ram and speed). > > Michael, just read about history of shared object. That was not technical decision, > that was marketing decision. > I might believe you about speed, but not about RAM. Memory usage goes up with static linking because you've got multiple copies of the same thing loaded into memory. And that makes the performance argument tricky as well: you're saving a bit of CPU time on function calls, but maybe your cache is also filled up with those same copies of the same stuff, and as a result things actually get slower as you hit the disk to load the 22nd copy of a library. Ignoring that, the faster load time and speed improvements were minor to begin with. It's not worth making your system annoying to manage. If you think I'm wrong, feel free to shoot yourself in the foot, but you shouldn't be calling Alessandro or the QA team incompetent (that's my bit...) unless you have some strong new evidence that static linking improves things in a general-purpose linux distro.