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


Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:

> I am not following your argument. How does having dependencies
> result in a bigger binary? I would think it would result in just the
> opposite - small binaries that link with other programs/libraries
> like building blocks. Other programs can share some of the same
> blocks, so you do not have to duplicate them in more then one binary.

My point is that including virtually every compile option in every
package means the system links to many more libraries than are probably
needed.  I know some compromise for 'desktop use' has to be made and I
understand that.  But including dependencies for every media player out
there seems silly.  Does that make a little more sense with where my
train of thought is going?  If not, don't worry, my wife doesn't
understand me either.

> You also have GUI programs that are front ends to CLI programs. So
> you naturally need the program(s) that they are front ends for when
> you are installing the GUI.
> If anything, Linux is moving away from the collection of small
> programs that preform one function well, and can be linked to other
> programs to perform a specific task...

Personally I like the 'one task and do it well' philosophy.  We've seen
the fun that is M$ and it's joke of an OS in Vista.  trying to be
everything to everybody and doing none of those things particularly
well.  But that is for another thread, methinks.

> Mikkel

Frustra laborant quotquot se calculationibus fatigant pro inventione
quadraturae circuli

Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415

Call (866) ERC-7110 for after hours support

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