4 ms·

> it allows for all of the things you list, yes, but those things just aren't really valuable compared to the reliable execution of a specific binary > smaller

> it allows for all of the things you list, yes, but those things just aren't really valuable compared to the reliable execution of a specific binary > smaller executable sizes, shared code in memory, synchronized security updates, are all basically value-zero, in any modern infrastructure This highlights the fact that you're extremely focused on one particular model of development, one where a single person or group deploys software that they are responsible for running and maintaining - often software that they've written themselves. This is, obviously, an extremely appropriate paradigm for the enterprise. Static linking makes a lot of sense here. Python's virtual environments are basically the approved workaround for the fact that Python was built for systems that are not statically linked, and I cherish it for exactly that reason. Use Go on your servers - I do myself! But that doesn't mean it's appropriate everywhere. Sometimes developers in this mindset forget there's a whole other world out there, a world of personal computers, that each have hundreds or thousands of applications installed. Applications on these systems are not deployed, they are installed. The mechanism by which this happens (on Linux) is via distributions and maintainers, and dynamic linking needs to be understood as designed for that ecosystem. Linux operating systems are built around making things simple, reliable, and secure for collections of software that are built and distributed by maintainers. I'm firmly on the side of the fence that says that dynamic linking is the correct way to do that. All the benefits you mention are just a free bonus, of course, but I care about them as well. Smaller executable sizes? Huge win on my 256 GB SSD. Synchronized security updates? Of course I care about those as an end user!

preseinger 4y ago
> Sometimes developers in this mindset forget there's a whole other world out there, a world of personal computers, that each have hundreds or thousands of applications installed. it's not that i forget about these use cases, it's that i don't really consider them relevant tooling that supports industrial use cases like mine is not really able to support end-user use cases like yours at the same time linux operating systems may have at one point been built around making things as you describe by distribution maintainers, but that model is anachronistic and no longer useful to the overwhelming majority of its user base, the huge majority of software is neither built nor distributed by maintainers, it is built and distributed by private enterprises
- bscphil 4y ago
  > > Sometimes developers in this mindset forget there's a whole other world out there, a world of personal computers, that each have hundreds or thousands of applications installed. > it's not that i forget about these use cases, it's that i don't really consider them relevant Yes, exactly! It's an extremely myopic vision. You've spent this long thread arguing against dynamic linking on the basis of what is only a small fraction of total human / computer interactions! By "not relevant" you mean not relevant to the enterprise. I grant that of course - but these uses cases are (by definition) relevant to hundreds of millions of PC users. > the huge majority of software is neither built nor distributed by maintainers, it is built and distributed by private enterprises The overwhelming majority of the software I run is built and distributed by maintainers. Literally, there are only a few exceptions, like static-built games that rarely or never change and are (unfortunately) closed source. I daresay that's true for the majority of Linux users - the vast majority of the software we install and use is not "built and distributed by private enterprises". This reality is what Linux-on-the-desktop is built for. There are millions of people who are going to want to continue using computers this way, and people like me will continue contributing to and developing distributions for this use case, even if shipping static or closed-source binaries to Linux users becomes common.
  - preseinger 4y ago
    linux-on-the-desktop is also like statistically zero of linux installations (modulo mobile) but if that's counter to a belief of yours then we're definitely not going to make progress here so (shrug) like i'm not sure you understand the scale of enterprise linux. a single organization of not-that-very-many people can easily create and destroy hundreds of millions of deployed systems every day, each with a novel configuration of installed software. i've seen it countless times.
    - bscphil 4y ago
      I think we're arguing on multiple fronts here and that is confusing things. 1. My point about Linux on the desktop is that there are in practice users like me who are already getting the (many) advantages of dynamic linking, and don't want to give up those advantages. To the point that some of us are going to support and work on distributions that continue the traditional Linux way in this area. In your view, the ecosystem has moved to software being built and distributed by private corporations. I don't think this has happened - on Windows software was always built and distributed this way; on (desktop) Linux it never was and largely still isn't! 2. My point about the desktop in general is that this use case matters to the vast majority of computer-using human beings much more than enterprise. The number of deployed containers that get created and destroyed every day doesn't change that fact, nor does the fact that Linux users are merely a tiny fraction of this desktop use case. This is what creates the myopia I was talking about - you're thinking about metrics like "number of systems deployed" whereas I'm thinking of number of human-computer interactions that are impacted. I don't think you can just discard what matters on the desktop or paint it as irrelevant. Desktop computing shouldn't be subordinate to the technical requirements of servers! So to summarize the argument: (a) desktop use cases still matter because they comprise the majority of human-computer interactions, (b) dynamic linking and the maintainer model are the superior approach for desktop computing, and in fact complement each other in important ways, and (c) even if most desktop users can't take advantage of this model because of the dominance of closed source software and the corporate development model, desktop Linux can and does, and will hopefully continue to do so into the future.
charcircuit 4y ago
>Applications on these systems are not deployed In a way they are. You deploy it to the store and then as people's computers download the update automatically. A counter example to your claims about Linux is Android. Libraries are not shared between apps (beyond the android framework and libc). This is despite the fact that phones have limited storage.
rektide 4y ago
I hugely agree that the parent is definitely definitely favoring one and only one kind of software model. You raise the world of personal computers. And I think dynamic linking is absolutely a choice that has huge advantages for these folks. There's other realms too. Embedded software needs smaller systems, so the dynamic library savings can be huge there. Hyper-scaler systems, where thousands of workloads can be running concurrently, can potentially scale to much much much higher usages with dynamic linking. It's a little far afield, but with systems like webasssembly we're really looking less at a couple orgs within a company each shipping a monolith or two, and we're potentially looking way more at having lots of very small functions with a couple helper libraries interacting. This isn't exactly a classic dynamic library, but especially with the very safe sandboxing built in, the ideal model is far closer to something like dynamic linking where each library can be shared than it is shared.

preseinger 4y ago

> Sometimes developers in this mindset forget there's a whole other world out there, a world of personal computers, that each have hundreds or thousands of applications installed. it's not that i forget about these use cases, it's that i don't really consider them relevant tooling that supports industrial use cases like mine is not really able to support end-user use cases like yours at the same time linux operating systems may have at one point been built around making things as you describe by distribution maintainers, but that model is anachronistic and no longer useful to the overwhelming majority of its user base, the huge majority of software is neither built nor distributed by maintainers, it is built and distributed by private enterprises

bscphil 4y ago
> > Sometimes developers in this mindset forget there's a whole other world out there, a world of personal computers, that each have hundreds or thousands of applications installed. > it's not that i forget about these use cases, it's that i don't really consider them relevant Yes, exactly! It's an extremely myopic vision. You've spent this long thread arguing against dynamic linking on the basis of what is only a small fraction of total human / computer interactions! By "not relevant" you mean not relevant to the enterprise. I grant that of course - but these uses cases are (by definition) relevant to hundreds of millions of PC users. > the huge majority of software is neither built nor distributed by maintainers, it is built and distributed by private enterprises The overwhelming majority of the software I run is built and distributed by maintainers. Literally, there are only a few exceptions, like static-built games that rarely or never change and are (unfortunately) closed source. I daresay that's true for the majority of Linux users - the vast majority of the software we install and use is not "built and distributed by private enterprises". This reality is what Linux-on-the-desktop is built for. There are millions of people who are going to want to continue using computers this way, and people like me will continue contributing to and developing distributions for this use case, even if shipping static or closed-source binaries to Linux users becomes common.
- preseinger 4y ago
  linux-on-the-desktop is also like statistically zero of linux installations (modulo mobile) but if that's counter to a belief of yours then we're definitely not going to make progress here so (shrug) like i'm not sure you understand the scale of enterprise linux. a single organization of not-that-very-many people can easily create and destroy hundreds of millions of deployed systems every day, each with a novel configuration of installed software. i've seen it countless times.
  - bscphil 4y ago
    I think we're arguing on multiple fronts here and that is confusing things. 1. My point about Linux on the desktop is that there are in practice users like me who are already getting the (many) advantages of dynamic linking, and don't want to give up those advantages. To the point that some of us are going to support and work on distributions that continue the traditional Linux way in this area. In your view, the ecosystem has moved to software being built and distributed by private corporations. I don't think this has happened - on Windows software was always built and distributed this way; on (desktop) Linux it never was and largely still isn't! 2. My point about the desktop in general is that this use case matters to the vast majority of computer-using human beings much more than enterprise. The number of deployed containers that get created and destroyed every day doesn't change that fact, nor does the fact that Linux users are merely a tiny fraction of this desktop use case. This is what creates the myopia I was talking about - you're thinking about metrics like "number of systems deployed" whereas I'm thinking of number of human-computer interactions that are impacted. I don't think you can just discard what matters on the desktop or paint it as irrelevant. Desktop computing shouldn't be subordinate to the technical requirements of servers! So to summarize the argument: (a) desktop use cases still matter because they comprise the majority of human-computer interactions, (b) dynamic linking and the maintainer model are the superior approach for desktop computing, and in fact complement each other in important ways, and (c) even if most desktop users can't take advantage of this model because of the dominance of closed source software and the corporate development model, desktop Linux can and does, and will hopefully continue to do so into the future.

charcircuit 4y ago

>Applications on these systems are not deployed In a way they are. You deploy it to the store and then as people's computers download the update automatically. A counter example to your claims about Linux is Android. Libraries are not shared between apps (beyond the android framework and libc). This is despite the fact that phones have limited storage.

rektide 4y ago

I hugely agree that the parent is definitely definitely favoring one and only one kind of software model. You raise the world of personal computers. And I think dynamic linking is absolutely a choice that has huge advantages for these folks. There's other realms too. Embedded software needs smaller systems, so the dynamic library savings can be huge there. Hyper-scaler systems, where thousands of workloads can be running concurrently, can potentially scale to much much much higher usages with dynamic linking. It's a little far afield, but with systems like webasssembly we're really looking less at a couple orgs within a company each shipping a monolith or two, and we're potentially looking way more at having lots of very small functions with a couple helper libraries interacting. This isn't exactly a classic dynamic library, but especially with the very safe sandboxing built in, the ideal model is far closer to something like dynamic linking where each library can be shared than it is shared.