Re: open-source virtualization software...and moving off-topic

["Kristian Erik Hermansen" <user=152@nabble.blu.org>]

 On Dec 14, 2007 3:18 PM, Kent Borg <[hidden email]> wrote: 
> P.S.  It is almost as if shared libraries were the big mistake, that the 
> savings came at such a high price in version hell, that we are willing 
> to duplicate the whole OS to dig ourselves out.  This is clearly not the 
> entire story, but it is part of it. 

You bring up an interesting point.  The energy saved by utilizing 
common libraries is sometimes lost down the road when a bug creeps 
into your application through this means.  And tracking it down is 
very tough, since you may not be familiar with the code.  When I cam 
over to Linux from Windows in the 90's, I was also confused that 
programs couldn't merely just "run".  You needed to have the binary 
built to utilize the correct version of libc, and it needed such and 
such libraries, and it would only run on this or that distribution. 
It was tough, and I was very frustrated.  It is just one more example 
of physics at work here guys.  Energy is neither lost or destroyed ... 
it is merely transferred :-) 

However, any developer at any time can choose to build their program 
statically, and I have done this a fair amount for my shared web 
hosting services.  This allows you to utilize whatever you want and 
not depend on the final host where that binary will run (expect for 
perhaps libc)... 
-- 
Kristian Erik Hermansen 
"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious." 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss