3 ms·
That's an opinion. There's a whole debate on bundling vs sharing, and neither opinion is canonically correct. That said, it is only a 'technical error' in your
by kedean 11y ago
That's an opinion. There's a whole debate on bundling vs sharing, and neither opinion is canonically correct. That said, it is only a 'technical error' in your view that shared libraries are the only way.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoBundling involves shared libraries. I'm not sure where you came up with this distinction.
- kedean 11y agoIn this entire post, bundling refers to software that includes a specific version of each library in its own binary, while shared refers to software that uses the system version and requires dependencies to be installed out of band (possibly by the package manager). They are competing ideologies.
- vezzy-fnord 11y agoBoth approaches involve shared libraries, which are simply dynamically linked objects. The article outlines a problem of distribution, not linking strategies. You're using shared libraries in both contexts. This is a misuse of well-established terminology. To say this is an ideological issue is a balance fallacy, as the package management approach has long been shown superior (by the likes of e.g. Nix and Guix).
- kedean 11y agoBoth sides have their arguments, as outlined by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10425913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10425913, so it's really not a black and white 'technical error' issue.