From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Received: by 10.194.175.36 with SMTP id bx4mr2194543wjc.1.1434535130186; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:58:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: voidlinux@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.5.34 with SMTP id p2ls296106lap.32.gmail; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:58:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.27.130 with SMTP id t2mr4870522lag.2.1434535129562; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gt9si239230wib.2.2015.06.17.02.58.49 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of chneuk...@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::233; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of chneuk...@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::233 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=chneuk...@gmail.com; dkim=pass head...@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: by mail-wi0-x233.google.com with SMTP id nd19so77579261wic.1 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:58:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=/GnBdooZ7JpVdjOQdbdogItYghHic2zqvVidaPHmk8I=; b=0nv0qacxCg5mS8GAG9OnCAniU2y2/MAU8QSO1j3nbXtx+TK9ZP4E4l71quOyfe4jc+ KmTZJWfYDgBDOyJVIHK+YQUwAIBq8lKxWIlK364ldDaO5uZ+bDHXgoKS43377DZ8fJCD DVb1wHIeCDdbq7j/MW/i8IwxcGKWCfYP9PYN8xAJSMBU8nQo/CDaU0bgxbivv2jJwg7h iotA1ajzDxfgScyFMrfishHV6nu7nPmfxnAbkUqWEstPnXnkSzGsxBwsdm6Aro0SB9W1 YWOjBUL5Z4CElaqAi9Gq5Sw6Mj9sZ4V6LsDycVEPSnWSxulc9vkljSrd+NNET7ZytObR Yq/Q== X-Received: by 10.194.173.8 with SMTP id bg8mr4169791wjc.65.1434535129385; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:58:49 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from juno.home.vuxu.org (host57-2.natpool.mwn.de. [138.246.2.57]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fb3sm25070087wib.21.2015.06.17.02.58.48 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 17 Jun 2015 02:58:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (juno.home.vuxu.org [local]); by juno.home.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPA id 7becb407; Wed, 17 Jun 2015 09:58:48 +0000 (UTC) From: Christian Neukirchen To: Stefan =?utf-8?Q?M=C3=BChlinghaus?= Cc: void...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: glibc vs musl - what is the difference for daily usage ? References: <1cfda652-6fa2-4d44-ab36-3f17f3be26ef@googlegroups.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:58:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: ("Stefan \=\?utf-8\?Q\?M\=C3\=BChlinghaus\=22's\?\= message of "Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:39:06 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: <87a8vy8xlz.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stefan M=C3=BChlinghaus writes: > I would be interested in that as well. Is there any *tangible* benefit in= =20 > using the musl libc except having the warm fuzzies from using the leaner= =20 > technology? :) > I hesitate to switch to musl for fear of running into incompatibilities,= =20 > but that could just be my superstitious self. Just a few additions: - MIT license, so you could build a GPL-free userland with it. - Good support for static linking. - Huge focus on correctness (which means in practice that sloppily written software can break...). - Good UTF-8 support. - Support for new and experimental architectures. Also see http://www.etalabs.net/compare_libcs.html --=20 Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org