> until most of them use different versions, so you will miss out on the advantage of dynamic linking anyway -- updating a library would only fix security holes

> until most of them use different versions, so you will miss out on the advantage of dynamic linking anyway -- updating a library would only fix security holes in a subset of your programs. You might as well just statically link everything and call it a day. Please don't. Especially if I don't have your source code. A reduced amount of binaries to upgrade is only the tip of the iceberg. Even if I have 10 programs using 10 different versions of the same library, dynamic linking is a better choice than static linking. Because it allows security upgrades, independently of any collaboration with the vendors of these 10 programs.