This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
- To: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb at becket dot net>
- Cc: Roland McGrath <roland at frob dot com>, Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>, Russ Allbery <rra at stanford dot edu>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 18:24:12 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002
On 9 Jan 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
>
> > Bzzt, no. glibc _is_ slower than other libraries, and the reason for that
> > is that people haven't cared. They've thought like you do, apparently.
>
> Um, where exactly can I read about these comparisons? How do we know
> that glibc is "slower than other libraries"? AFAIK the only libc
> available on GNU/Linux systems is glibc, and nobody's compared it on
> other systems.
Oh, lots of people have. A number of the people who have not upgraded from
the "old" library are refusing to upgrade to glibc exactly because it
makes their systems slower.
(Yes, these people tend to have fairly weak hardware that few developers
would accept these days).
> > And if glibc developers don't start caring, somebody smaller and faster
> > and more aggressive will come along. Because you ARE wrong.
>
> Um, ok. Do you have papers or other evidence I can read about?
I see embedded people complaining quite often, and there are at least
three different "small libc" projects going on exactly because glibc
simply is too big for many people (ulibc, dietlibc and something I
forget).
And you want research papers? I think concerns from the "real world" are
quite adequate, thank you.
Linus