From: loki@maison-otaku.net (Jeremy Blackman) Subject: CYGWIN.DLL 17 Jan 1997 16:49:46 -0800 Approved: cygnus.gnu-win32@cygnus.com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Sender: loki@herne.dragoncat.net Original-To: gnu-win32@cygnus.com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32@cygnus.com Ok, folks. I admit to having been one of the folks who started this (lengthy) discussion, and there have been some good points made. But we're starting to repeat ourselves. :) Let's just summarize with: * Some people disagree on whether or not static or dynamic libraries are better. * Static libraries _ARE_ easier to distribute (though larger) end executables, and are a little better at preventing library version skew. * Dynamic libraries are more memory efficient, more space efficient, but can (though are not neccessarily) be more annoying to distribute for a single command-line style utility (like grep or something), if the DLL isn't pre-installed. (I personally believe for applications which are already building their own directory tree, installing multiple files, etc...just use the DLL. But not everyone agrees). * People will have their own opinions. * There are valid reasons why the cygwin.dll is as large as it is. * cygwin is intended as a way to port UNIX programs to Windows. The large number of functions in the DLL are required for this stated end. * If you want a solution that doesn't rely on the DLL, check out the Minimalist GNU-WIN32 kit. That about sum it up? If so, then let's get back to normal list discussion. :) --Jeremy - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".