4 ms·

Yes, if someone actually did dependency management in Linux properly then I agree - dynamic linking would be fine. It works pretty well in Nixos as I understand

Yes, if someone actually did dependency management in Linux properly then I agree - dynamic linking would be fine. It works pretty well in Nixos as I understand it. But it’s called dependency hell for a reason. And the reason is almost no operating systems handle C dependencies well. There’s always weird, complex, distribution specific systems involving 18 different versions of every library. Do you want llvm18 or llvm18-dev or llvm-18-full-dev or something else entirely? Oh, you’re on gentoo? Better enable some USE flags. Redhat? It’s different again. If Linux dependency management worked well, there would be no need or appetite for docker. But it works badly. So people just use docker and flatpak and whatnot instead, while my hard drive gently weeps. I don’t know about you, but I’m happy to declare bankruptcy on this project. I’d take a 2mb statically linked binary over a 300mb Linux docker image any day of the week.

StillBored 3y ago
This isn't really an "operating system" problem. Particularly in the open-source world, there are a number of fairly core libraries that refuse to provide any kind of API compatibility. Then, when there are a couple dozen applications/etc that depend on that library, it's almost an impossible problem because each of those applications then needs to be updated in lockstep with the library version. There is nothing "clean" about how to handle this situation short of having loads of distro maintainers showing up in the upstream packages to fix them to support newer versions of the library. Of course, then all the distro's need to agree on what those versions are going to be... Hence containers, which don't fix the problem at all. Instead they just move the responsibility away from the distro, which should never really have been packaging applications to begin with.
- palata 3y ago
  > away from the distro, which should never really have been packaging applications to begin with. I disagree here: the whole point of a "software distribution" is to "distribute" software. And it does so by packaging it. There is a ton of benefit in having distro/package maintainers, and we tend to forget it.
palata 3y ago
> If Linux dependency management worked well, there would be no need or appetite for docker. I kindly disagree here. Linux dependency management does work well. The problem is the bad libraries that don't do semver properly, and the users who still decide to use bad libraries. If people stopped using libraries that break ABI compatibility, then the authors of those libraries would have to do it properly, and it would work. The reason it doesn't work is really just malpractice.
- zaphar 3y ago
  If Linux dependency management works well in theory but not in practice then it doesn't work. It works in nix because it can literally use multiple minor versions of a library when it needs to with no problem. Most distro's can't or won't do that. You can call it malpractice but it's not going to stop so in practice you need a way to deal with it.
  - palata 3y ago
    Well, by calling it "malpractice", I say that it works for "true professionals". Then we could say that "it doesn't work in practice if people who don't know what they are doing cannot use it", of course. The question then is where we want to put the bar. I feel like it is too low, and most software is too bad. And I don't want to participate in making tooling that helps lowering the bar even more.
    - palata 3y ago
      And by the way it does work really well for good software. Actually most Linux distros use a system package manager and have been doing it for decades. So I think it would be more accurate to say that "it doesn't work for lower quality software". And I agree with that.
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
  Semver only controls API compatibility, not ABI compatibility. You can make an ABI break in a Semver minor (or patch) version update. Semver is nice, but it's not enough for ensuring compatibility when dynamic linking.

StillBored 3y ago

This isn't really an "operating system" problem. Particularly in the open-source world, there are a number of fairly core libraries that refuse to provide any kind of API compatibility. Then, when there are a couple dozen applications/etc that depend on that library, it's almost an impossible problem because each of those applications then needs to be updated in lockstep with the library version. There is nothing "clean" about how to handle this situation short of having loads of distro maintainers showing up in the upstream packages to fix them to support newer versions of the library. Of course, then all the distro's need to agree on what those versions are going to be... Hence containers, which don't fix the problem at all. Instead they just move the responsibility away from the distro, which should never really have been packaging applications to begin with.

palata 3y ago
> away from the distro, which should never really have been packaging applications to begin with. I disagree here: the whole point of a "software distribution" is to "distribute" software. And it does so by packaging it. There is a ton of benefit in having distro/package maintainers, and we tend to forget it.

palata 3y ago

> If Linux dependency management worked well, there would be no need or appetite for docker. I kindly disagree here. Linux dependency management does work well. The problem is the bad libraries that don't do semver properly, and the users who still decide to use bad libraries. If people stopped using libraries that break ABI compatibility, then the authors of those libraries would have to do it properly, and it would work. The reason it doesn't work is really just malpractice.

zaphar 3y ago
If Linux dependency management works well in theory but not in practice then it doesn't work. It works in nix because it can literally use multiple minor versions of a library when it needs to with no problem. Most distro's can't or won't do that. You can call it malpractice but it's not going to stop so in practice you need a way to deal with it.
- palata 3y ago
  Well, by calling it "malpractice", I say that it works for "true professionals". Then we could say that "it doesn't work in practice if people who don't know what they are doing cannot use it", of course. The question then is where we want to put the bar. I feel like it is too low, and most software is too bad. And I don't want to participate in making tooling that helps lowering the bar even more.
  - palata 3y ago
    And by the way it does work really well for good software. Actually most Linux distros use a system package manager and have been doing it for decades. So I think it would be more accurate to say that "it doesn't work for lower quality software". And I agree with that.
SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
Semver only controls API compatibility, not ABI compatibility. You can make an ABI break in a Semver minor (or patch) version update. Semver is nice, but it's not enough for ensuring compatibility when dynamic linking.