Re: [9fans] SO for plan9?

[Oleg Krivosheev <kriol@wally.fnal.gov>]

dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com writes:

> kriol@wally.fnal.gov writes:
> > first being the ability to share code between the application
> >
> > hate to see gnome ported and get 20meg staticaly linked
> > simple CD player
>
> So basically you want shared libraries to mitigate the effects
> of code bloat?  Why not do away with the code bloat instead?
> This is Plan 9's approach.

huh !?!

i thought statically linking each and every application in the system
IS code bloat

> In the case that there is some large-ish body of code that
> needs to be shared between applications, the Plan 9 way
> is to make that body of code into a file server which the
> applications can talk to (as already suggested on this list
> by Tom Duff).

and each and every communication will go through
system call and user/kernel transition?

doesn't sound good

> In the worst case, you might need a small
> stub library to put a procedure-call interface on top of
> the file server interface, but it certainly doesn't have to be
> as big as libX11.a!

nice thing about SO that they have exacly the same interface as
static stuff - just function call...

> Acme is an example of this approach; acme handles all the
> gory details of text windows, so that programs like the
> acme mail reader don't have to.

i have to look inside acme more...

>
> It might be interesting to take the Inferno Tk implementation
> and build it into a Plan 9 fileserver...

ok, what about another reason to have SO - patch libraries on the fly?

What do you do when you discover serios bug in libc/libm/whatever?

with Debian i just do "apt-get install libc6" and voila -
all bugs are fixed in no time (well, almost ;)) while
1/2 gig installation is intact.
And it would be probably 1gig installation for plan9 with
all stuff linked statically...

any hews/ideas here? i'm quite curious...

thank you

OK
\x01\x01\x01\x01