Why has Plan 9 chosen statically linked binaries instead of dynamic ones? (2004)
This is far too narrow a view. It's not a question of whether to dynamically link or not, but WHERE and HOW to dynamically link.<p>Think about it: If you were to force absolutely everything to be statically linked, your KDE app would have to include the ENTIRE KDE library suite, as well as the QT libraries it's based on, as well as the X window libraries those are based on, etc etc. You'd quickly end up with a calculator app that's hundreds of megabytes.<p>But let's not stop there, because the linkage to the kernel is also dynamic, which is a no-no. So every app would now need to be linked to a specific kernel, and include all the kernel code.<p>Now imagine you upgraded the kernel. You'd have to rebuild EVERY SINGLE THING on the system to build with that new kernel, or a new version of KDE or QT or X or anything in between.<p>The kernel membrane is a form of dynamic linkage for a reason. Same goes for IPC. Dynamic linkage is useful and necessary; just not to such a microscopic level as it once was due to size constraints.<p>The key is not to eliminate dynamic linkage, but rather to apply it with discretion, at carefully defined boundaries.