Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Dillo (was "Opera vulnerability")

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Mike Miller wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Michael wrote:
> 
> > Did you by chance compile it as static? That's probably explain why it's
> > so big. I usda have it installed and it certainly wasn't that big.
> > Otherwise I'll agree with your impression. Dillo is good for reading
> > html docs. Can't compare to Mozilla for standards compliance and
> > features though.
> 
> What's the trick to compiling it smaller?

Michael apears to be suggesting that you compiled a so-called "static"  
binary (libraries linked into the binary at build time), rather than a 
binary where the libraries are "dynamically" loaded and
used at run-time.  Dynamic linking gives you smaller binaries on the disk, 
but may or may not change the run-time memory footprint very much.  The 
trick might be to get Solaris to compile this with dynamic libraries 
enabled, but I know nothing about Solaris, so I don't know how to tell you 
how to do this or even whether that's an option (although I'm guessing it 
is.)

jking


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion