[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] rpm

To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi
Subject: Re: [MiNT] rpm
From: Jo Even Skarstein <joska@online.no>
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 11:49:21 +0100
In-reply-to: <54949AB8.7080302@chello.nl>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-owner: <mailto:tjhukkan@fishpool.fi>
List-post: <mailto:mint@lists.fishpool.fi>
List-subscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
References: <5492481B.5090308@atari-source.org> <000e9903.01ffd490203d@smtp.freeola.net> <54949AB8.7080302@chello.nl>
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi

On fr., 2014-12-19 at 22:38 +0100, Henk Robbers wrote:

> Static linking might not be as inefficient as most people think.
> Besides that its concept is rather uncomplicated and a lot more
> safe than dynamic linking with suspicious libraries
> each time a program is run.

I tend to agree with Henk. Dynamic linking has advantages, but as a
concept it's not really suited for a system without virtual memory.
Also, it complicates stuff a lot.

Jo Even

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [MiNT] rpm
  - From: Peter Slegg <p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk>

References:
- Re: [MiNT] rpm
  - From: Mark Duckworth <mduckworth@atari-source.org>
- Re: [MiNT] rpm
  - From: Peter Slegg <p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk>
- Re: [MiNT] rpm
  - From: Henk Robbers <h.robbers@chello.nl>

Prev by Date: Re: [MiNT] fscheck.sh
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] fscheck.sh
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] rpm
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] rpm
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread