libc

Miguel Bazdresch lfs-01 at thewizardstower.org
Sun Jan 4 03:45:46 PST 2004


* ashes <cendres at videotron.ca> [04-0104 11:51]:
> Is there any reasons uclibc would be considered more secure then glibc? What 
> sort of applications would not be able to build with uclibc? I'm pretty sure 
> X will, if not then TinyX. Should at least be considered. uclibc and busybox 
> is less code, should be less prone to bugs too.

That's an unwarranted and dangerous assumption. Code size and number
of bugs are not necessarily correlated. From uclibc's FAQ:

"Some of the space savings in uClibc is obtained at the cost of
performance, and some is due to sacrificing features. Much of it comes
from aggressive refactoring of code to eliminate redundancy."

Now consider this quote from Kernighan:

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it."

-- 
Miguel Bazdresch
http://thewizardstower.org/



More information about the hlfs-dev mailing list