Too late to edit, but gnu coreutils statically linked is 8.8MB total for 105 executables versus 5.5MB for Ubuntu's dynamically linked version.
The largest executable is ptx at 272kb vs 72kb for the Ubuntu binary.
For the smallest, false is 48k statically linked vs 32k for the Ubuntu binary.
If all 970 executables in /usr/bin average out to 100kb of extra space, that's less than 100MB overhead.
[edit]
Stripping the binaries decreases the size to about 7MB total or byte sizes of 34312 vs 30824 for a stripped false binary and 251752 vs 71928 for ptx.
For download times, a tar.xz is a good measurement and it's 819k for the 105 statically linked files or 1015k for the full installation of coreutils including the info files and manpages.
[edit2]
Some proponents of static linking talk about performance, I think it's a negligible win, but as I have it handy I thought I'd measure:
>For the smallest, false is 48k statically linked vs 32k for the Ubuntu binary.
Lol, you have to do some kind of stripping or GC sections or what not for this to be a fair comparison. A proper version of false is 508bytes on my machine.
The largest executable is ptx at 272kb vs 72kb for the Ubuntu binary.
For the smallest, false is 48k statically linked vs 32k for the Ubuntu binary.
If all 970 executables in /usr/bin average out to 100kb of extra space, that's less than 100MB overhead.
[edit]
Stripping the binaries decreases the size to about 7MB total or byte sizes of 34312 vs 30824 for a stripped false binary and 251752 vs 71928 for ptx.
For download times, a tar.xz is a good measurement and it's 819k for the 105 statically linked files or 1015k for the full installation of coreutils including the info files and manpages.
[edit2]
Some proponents of static linking talk about performance, I think it's a negligible win, but as I have it handy I thought I'd measure:
10000 runs of a dynamically linked "false":
10000 runs if a statically linked "false":