5 ms·
> I don't think that being able to replace a library at runtime is a useful enough feature to justify the high maintenance cost of shared libraries. We’re movi
by speedplane 5y ago
> I don't think that being able to replace a library at runtime is a useful enough feature to justify the high maintenance cost of shared libraries.
We’re moving to a world where every program is containerized or sandboxed. There is no more real “sharing” of libraries, everything gets “statically linked” in a Docker image anyway.
- Glavnokoman 5y agoIn the cloud. Otherwise it is very seldom justified.
- littlecranky67 5y agoNot using Docker, but Snap/Flatpak use similar approaches.
- Glavnokoman 5y agoSnap is one really sick idea. I do not understand how could it ever take off.
- pjc50 5y agoI bet someone will invent shared content for Docker containers in the next few years as a disk-saving measure.
- codegladiator 5y agoThat's called volume mounts and/or base images ?
- regularfry 5y agoIf I do an `apt-get install` of the same packages in different containers, with anything different at all before it in the Dockerfiles, there's no way to share a common layer that includes the package contents between those images. You could volume mount /usr and chunks of /var to help, but I'm not sure that would be sane.
- radicalbyte 5y agoThere are storage systems which do this, de-dupe on disk level.