From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Received: by 10.50.221.100 with SMTP id qd4mr6326707igc.0.1434493052691; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: voidlinux@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.135.94 with SMTP id j91ls394161iod.85.gmail; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.128.231 with SMTP id nr7mr34106648igb.11.1434493052426; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from hurricane.the-brannons.com (hurricane.the-brannons.com. [2001:470:1:41:a800:ff:fe3e:bc77]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x3si294296pdh.2.2015.06.16.15.17.32 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ch...@the-brannons.com designates 2001:470:1:41:a800:ff:fe3e:bc77 as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:470:1:41:a800:ff:fe3e:bc77; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ch...@the-brannons.com designates 2001:470:1:41:a800:ff:fe3e:bc77 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ch...@the-brannons.com Received: from localhost (75-164-228-9.ptld.qwest.net [75.164.228.9]) by hurricane.the-brannons.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 38E0877ADA for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:16:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Chris Brannon To: voidlinux@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: glibc vs musl - what is the difference for daily usage ? References: <1cfda652-6fa2-4d44-ab36-3f17f3be26ef@googlegroups.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 15:17:30 -0700 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: <87bngf2t8l.fsf@mushroom.localdomain> 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 using the musl libc except having the warm fuzzies from using the > leaner technology? :) > I hesitate to switch to musl for fear of running into > incompatibilities, but that could just be my superstitious self. Well, I'm probably not the best advocate, but here goes. The reason I took an interest in musl is that it is very friendly to static linking, and on occasion, I really want to be able to statically link things! The code is also quite readable. I run Void with musl on my Raspberry Pi, and yes, the "warm fuzzies from using the leaner technology" are nice. Finally, part of me just really dislikes monoculture, and having an alternative libc appeals to that sensibility. I'm sure someone can come up with better reasons. That being said, I doubt most users care much about libc implementations. If you're running proprietary binaries of some sort, they're probably linked against glibc, so they won't run out of the box on a system where musl is the standard library. That isn't an issue for me on my Raspberry Pi. There are still some open source packages that won't build with it. The released versions of emacs are a good example. If you want to build emacs against musl, you have to use sources from git and apply patches that have been submitted to Alpine. Hope this helps, -- Chris