![]() Maybe you are thinking about swapping (or not even lazy loading in the block layer) ?Ĭode has to be in RAM, everything else is insecure Some functions use other functions (fopen()->_open() in libc) so you can have more then two pages >Most OS linkers already do efficient loading of only the relevant portions of a shared library since they typically mmap the library file.Ī function is typically, what, 60 bytes ? 120 maybe ? 240 ? So let's not base our arguments on assumptions about knowledge just because we disagree. ![]() I understand static linking quite well, since my day job is part of a commercial OS team that coincidentally pioneered dynamic linking technology in UNIX. why do people never understand static linking ? although shared libraries are bigger security risksĬode is code how is shared linking a greater risk? Have any data to back that up? Potentially increased security risks, yes. In addition, updating 100 binaries, even with diffs still takes longer than uprating a single library, which means increased downtime during system updates. More bandwidth, yes (not much if one uses binary diffs)Ī binary diff of 100 programs all linking to the same library will still be larger than the diffs for a single library. In aggregate, static linking the same dependency for multiple programs will increase memory usage as well despite your assertions to the contrary since the pages will not generally be shared (yes, I'm aware some OS have page dedup or compression, etc., but I'm talking about the general case here). Most OS linkers already do efficient loading of only the relevant portions of a shared library since they typically mmap the library file. It will decrease memory usage (as most loaders load the whole library, even when just one function is used) Statically linking to properly(!) made libraries will only maybe increase storage space Yes, package repos are nice, but not when it means I'm perpetually multiple versions behind on common software just because a handful of nerds are trying to do the job of Github and Sourceforge combined, instead of just building an easier method of installing and updating third-party software. I'm not limited to awkward work-around manual install methods just because the version of Notepad++ linked to Windows 8.1 hasn't been updated since it was released. No other operating system but Linux (and possibly some BSDs) does this to the extent that the distro model does. The idea of linking end-user software versioning to the operating system version itself was always a dumb idea, but has become even more absurd over time. It is not the software writers' fault that your distro can't be arsed to keep its package system up-to-date.Įven the unstable branch is routinely multiple versions behind on software. It is our (kid-sig's) opinion/desire that xscreensaver's webcollage screensaver have sane defaults, and that includes not showing pr0n.Frankly, this is a very good example why I inevitably give up on using Debian. bug xscreensaver maintainer to make webcolloage choose a better default for itself, so that xscreensaver users/consumers (like kscreensaver) don't need to add workarounds forever. include a temporary hack/workround (as we did with kde3)Ģ. I think the approach we're going to take isġ. Additional comment from on 21:49:17 EDT. Need to address this before Fedora gets a NC17 rating. Additional comment from on 17:12:30 EDT -īumped the priority up. Ugh, this problem existed in kde3 (and we hacked around it), and I thought it was addressed in kde4. Additional comment from on 10:51:48 EDT. Not sure how to get it to redisplay those images, but I would prefer that the app allow the user to decide what sites to visit rather than randomly downloading images. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): I do *not* browse porn sites on that machine, and it does not share any data with other machines and is used solely for testing code. And the images being displayed were pornographic and very explicit. This morning I came back to that machine to find that the screensaver had kicked in and was running web collage. ![]() +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #461926 +++
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |