sites

Unnamed repository; edit this file 'description' to name the repository.
Log | Files | Refs

commit f0c3cd34c4f3cbbfe099d4a4a36fa3b4cfc9841d
parent fbeaa6d4dfd9a591b096ce05c6c612552c77c421
Author: arg@localhost.localdomain <unknown>
Date:   Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:03:55 +0000

typo fix
Diffstat:
Msta.li/faq.md | 4++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/sta.li/faq.md b/sta.li/faq.md @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ for some insight. Also a security issue with dynamically linked libraries are executables with the suid flag. A user can easily run dynamic library code using LD_PRELOAD in -conjunction with some trivial program like ping. Using a statically linked +conjunction with some trivial program like ping. Using a static executable with the suid flag eliminates this problem completely. Apart from that we link against libraries with low footprint (eg uclibc instead @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ A general conclusion is, the more dynamic libraries an executable depends on, the slower it'll start, regardless if the libraries are preloaded or not. This also means that usually big static executables (which we try to avoid) easily outperform dynamic executables with lots of dependencies. If a big -statically executable is already running, executed another one is nearly +static executable is already running, executed another one is nearly instantaniously, because the payload is already in the memory. In the dynamic case the startup is not instantaniously because the dynamic linker has to make sure that there were no updates in the dependencies.