4 ms·
One of the reasons I've switched some builds over to musl over glibc, is that I found that glibc linking is brittle if you're going to run a binary over multipl
by digikata 3y ago
One of the reasons I've switched some builds over to musl over glibc, is that I found that glibc linking is brittle if you're going to run a binary over multiple distros in various container environments. Particularly if you want one binary to work on linux across RH and Debian/Ubuntu derived distros or even different ages of distro.
- skywal_l 3y agoLinus Torvald agrees with you: https://youtu.be/Pzl1B7nB9Kc?feature=shared&t=261 https://youtu.be/Pzl1B7nB9Kc?feature=shared&t=261
- raverbashing 3y agoAs much as I think about Linux compared to the competition in desktop the more I realize this is right "If it's a bug people rely on it's not a bug, it's a feature" Let me guess, he was thinking of the memcpy issue that broke flash. Or maybe something else. And I agree, nobody cares The spec says that because it was the 70s and nobody had thought better of that or how things would work 30 yrs on, and going with it does not make sense. And I feel the pain of this hardheadedness when any library deprecates an API when they didn't need. "Oh but it's cleaner now" Again, nobody cares