| |||||||||||||
A turning point for GNU libcA turning point for GNU libcPosted Apr 2, 2012 13:20 UTC (Mon) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262)In reply to: A turning point for GNU libc by BenHutchings Parent article: A turning point for GNU libc
> Given that most of the demand for static linking comes from companies wanting to distribute proprietary binaries
Not every company distributes software. I can't remember the last time I wrote anything in my day job which wasn't for purely in-house use. The arguments in the "static linking considered harmful" piece simply don't apply in some cases.
(Log in to post comments)
A turning point for GNU libc Posted Apr 2, 2012 13:28 UTC (Mon) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Not every company distributes software. I can't remember the last time I wrote anything in my day job which wasn't for purely in-house use. The arguments in the "static linking considered harmful" piece simply don't apply in some cases.
I suppose that assuming that the new team is less unfriendly to static linking it will also be a question of whether there are enough people actively interested in it to get the necessary changes in.
|
|||||||||||||