3 ms·
> "Wouldn't an architecture that allows the distribution to define and replace Z on its own be valuable?" In theory, sure. But how many more years of practice
by roc 15y ago
> "Wouldn't an architecture that allows the distribution to define and replace Z on its own be valuable?"
In theory, sure. But how many more years of practice do we need before we accept that it doesn't work that way in reality? That any change in Z is as likely to break apps that use it, as save them some hassle?
- ajross 15y agoClearly I was too subtle. It, uh, wasn't actually a hypothetical: zlib had known exploits that bit Microsoft and others for years because they had cut and pasted the library into a zillion places. Linux distros just updated. There's no theory at work here. Static linkage of common components is a security vulnerability.
- roc 15y agoAnd I wasn't saying it never works. I was simply saying that it doesn't work that way regularly, or even often.