Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th Nov 2011 21:26 UTC, submitted by edwin
Permalink for comment 496999
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-05-06
Not really a kernel problem as the dynamic linker isn't really in the kernel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_linker#ELF-based_Unix-like_sys...
When something is statically linked, the library is dissolved, what is not used the dead stripper should remove. Your system is not like static linking. It's like baking dynamic linking.
Then you kind of loose some of the gains. You have to have dependencies sitting around waiting in case they are needed. Or you have a repository to pull them down from....
That was my point.
Yes.
As I said before, it's not really static, it's baked dynamic. Also if you have dependencies separate you either have loads kicking about in case they are need (Windows) or you have package management. If you have package management all you get out of this is baking dynamic linking. For no gain I can see.....
It's quite different as it's decentralized using these application folders. Application folders are often put forwards by some as a solution to dependencies.