3 ms·
I feel like these sorts of articles come up every so often, but still don't buy it. While I agree that disk usage is no longer a driver for shared libraries, m
by kelnos 2y ago
I feel like these sorts of articles come up every so often, but still don't buy it.
While I agree that disk usage is no longer a driver for shared libraries, memory usage still is, to some extent. If I have 50 processes using the same libaray (and I do), that shared library's readonly data sections get loaded into RAM exactly once. That's a good thing.
But even if that problem wasn't an issue, security is still a big one for me. When my distro releases a new version of a library package to fix a security issue, every single package that uses it gets the security fix, without its each maintainer having to rebuild each package against the fixed version. (Sure, some distros manage this more centrally and won't have to wait for individual maintainers, but not all are like that.)
I don't have to wonder what app has been fixed and what hasn't been. I don't have to make sure every single AppImage/Flatpak/Snap on my system that depends on that library (which I may not even know) gets updated, and possibly disable or uninstall those that haven't been, until they have.
I like shared libraries, even with the problems they sometimes (rarely!) cause.