2 ms·

Sure, but I think the most important reason people have in mind when they argue for dynamic linking is that they will receive upstream bugfixes. I don't think y

Sure, but I think the most important reason people have in mind when they argue for dynamic linking is that they will receive upstream bugfixes. I don't think your eight cases are equally important. You are of course right, though, and writing it down like this can be useful.

IshKebab 6y ago
Why would you not receive upstream bug fixes with statically linked programs? Assuming you are using an Apt-style package manager then the statically linked program would be rebuilt and updated too. If you are not using an apt-style package manager then the program must include all of its dependencies (except ones that are guaranteed to be present on the platform, which is none on Linux and a few on Mac/Windows), and you will receive bug fixes when that program is updated, whether or not it uses static linking. Static/dynamic linking does not affect how likely you are to get bug fixes in any way as far as I can tell.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  The first hurdle is that you require source code to do any of this. Then you need to actually rebuild everything.
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    Apt-style package systems do have source for everything and rebuild everything.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> Sure, but I think the most important reason people have in mind when they argue for dynamic linking is that they will receive upstream bugfixes. Ironic considering that the package manager/repo model is largely implemented as a solution to issues with dynamic linking and yet makes getting up to date software from the developer much harder by introducing a third-party maintainer into the process.