2 ms·

> Why are most open source programs dynamically linked again? Probably because dynamically-linked binaries are smaller, use less memory (by avoiding duplicatio

> Why are most open source programs dynamically linked again? Probably because dynamically-linked binaries are smaller, use less memory (by avoiding duplication), and can get fixes or security updates without rebuilding or re-deploying. When you're a distro it hardly makes sense to ship a copy of libc inside every single binary. Any fix/update to libc would require re-downloading basically the whole system!

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
akavel 14y ago
"I tend to think the drawbacks of dynamic linking outweigh the advantages for many (most?) applications." -- John Carmack "Dynamic linking considered harmful": http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/versioned-symbols http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/versioned-... OTOH, arguments of the other side, for proper polemics: "Static linking considered harmful": http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html
coffeeaddicted 14y ago
Maybe the problem is saying all programs have to behave the same. It would indeed be irritating to have every unix-tool link to it's own libraries. But most well-known tools are small programs that don't get constant feature updates. But it's a whole different thing for typical desktop applications. Those are often way more often updated than the distros and there's no 2 distros out there having the same library versions which might be needed for an app to run. Still distros do not like if such applications use separate library versions... and that just doesn't work so well except maybe for the handful of high-profile applications which have enough maintainers. I mean even keeping an up-to-date Iceweasel on Debian already caused me trouble with library dependencies just some months ago - and that is probably the most prominent desktop application in the free software world. It's getting even stranger in the world of free games. When games need library fixes (very typical situation as games and engines are very interwoven), which are not yet in a distro (and won't be for some time because the library is for example not yet officially updated or maybe a certain patch simply won't be included). On a system like Windows it's no problem - modify the library source and add the dll. On Linux distro's... well, just not easy possible. Which means funny enough that it's easier to modify library sources in the in the proprietary microsoft world than in the free software world. We got freedom coming with library + distro gatekeepers so to say... which pretty much sucks (even for the library authors).
mibbitier 14y ago
Bandwidth is cheap. Memory and disk space are cheap. I think the days when it mattered are really coming to an end personally. The amount of space (memory/disk/bandwidth) taken up by binary code is minuscule compared with data/video/streaming/games/etc etc
- option_greek 14y ago
  Not on every system. Not even on most systems. Embedded, mobile etc still benefit from low distro size.
- grimboy 14y ago
  Cache memory is still not cheap.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

akavel 14y ago

"I tend to think the drawbacks of dynamic linking outweigh the advantages for many (most?) applications." -- John Carmack "Dynamic linking considered harmful": http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/versioned-symbols http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/versioned-... OTOH, arguments of the other side, for proper polemics: "Static linking considered harmful": http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/no_static_linking.html

coffeeaddicted 14y ago

Maybe the problem is saying all programs have to behave the same. It would indeed be irritating to have every unix-tool link to it's own libraries. But most well-known tools are small programs that don't get constant feature updates. But it's a whole different thing for typical desktop applications. Those are often way more often updated than the distros and there's no 2 distros out there having the same library versions which might be needed for an app to run. Still distros do not like if such applications use separate library versions... and that just doesn't work so well except maybe for the handful of high-profile applications which have enough maintainers. I mean even keeping an up-to-date Iceweasel on Debian already caused me trouble with library dependencies just some months ago - and that is probably the most prominent desktop application in the free software world. It's getting even stranger in the world of free games. When games need library fixes (very typical situation as games and engines are very interwoven), which are not yet in a distro (and won't be for some time because the library is for example not yet officially updated or maybe a certain patch simply won't be included). On a system like Windows it's no problem - modify the library source and add the dll. On Linux distro's... well, just not easy possible. Which means funny enough that it's easier to modify library sources in the in the proprietary microsoft world than in the free software world. We got freedom coming with library + distro gatekeepers so to say... which pretty much sucks (even for the library authors).

mibbitier 14y ago

Bandwidth is cheap. Memory and disk space are cheap. I think the days when it mattered are really coming to an end personally. The amount of space (memory/disk/bandwidth) taken up by binary code is minuscule compared with data/video/streaming/games/etc etc

option_greek 14y ago
Not on every system. Not even on most systems. Embedded, mobile etc still benefit from low distro size.
grimboy 14y ago
Cache memory is still not cheap.