Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything

dyson at iquest.net dyson at iquest.net
Tue Nov 18 18:53:15 PST 2003

	I suspect that my position has been expressed

	Further discussion might become divisive, but
	a decision that incurs the overhead of performance
	or a rebuild on the default user base seems
	wrong (JUST MY OPINION.)  It took ALOT of WORK
	(person years) to make FreeBSD perform as well
	as it does.

	BOTH the add-on crew and the general user base can
	have the performance and feature set without
	rebuilding, but the decision was apparently made
	to impose the cost of performance or rebuild and
	binary maintenance on the default user base.

	It makes more sense to have appropriately
	upgraded the system (by the NSS project) to avoid
	the performance hit by others and also provide
	the feature set.  Apparently (I haven't fully
	analysed this) implementing the dlopen stuff for
	non-dynamic programs would have helped to mitigate
	this issue.  (It might have put more burden on the
	NSS/PAM/whatever addon projects, but those are
	indeed addons that shouldn't take ANYTHING away
	from the rest of the project.)

	I am suggesting that the NSS crew and those who
	are concerned about performance can BOTH have
	the results that they wish for.

	'All or nothing' creates divisiveness, and in these
	discussions it is TOO EASY to fall into that trap.
	I am not suggesting the loss of the new NSS stuff,
	but also suggest that ANY loss of performance when
	it can be avoided, is unwise.

	My opinion is known, and hopefully the loss of
	hard earned performance with person-years of work
	won't happen as time goes on.  A little loss isn't
	that bad, but how much loss is too much loss (esp when
	not necessary?)


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list