3 ms·
A peer commentator already mentioned this. I already explained: The solution is to provide sufficiently broad set of tightly integrated base system libraries;
by pifflesnort 14y ago
A peer commentator already mentioned this. I already explained:
The solution is to provide sufficiently broad set of tightly integrated base system libraries; there are few, if any, duplicate dependencies across most applications.
-- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5567754 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5567754
The advantage is that you have broad, comprehensive, consistent libraries that integrate with the base system, rather than a mash-up of inconsistent library interfaces and shell scripts -- for example, see how Linux distributions manage OpenSSL and certificate authorities, versus how OS X and Windows both integrate their crypto libraries into the system certificate stores and UIs.
- derleth 14y ago> The solution is to provide sufficiently broad set of tightly integrated base system libraries So... when you find a bug in one, the only thing to do is an OS upgrade? And what about new APIs that come along? Will third-party libraries exist at all, or will users have to wait for an OS upgrade to have applications that can take advantage of them?
- pifflesnort 14y ago> So... when you find a bug in one, the only thing to do is an OS upgrade? Yes. Which, ideally, is cheap and easy to do. > And what about new APIs that come along? Will third-party libraries exist at all, or will users have to wait for an OS upgrade to have applications that can take advantage of them? We can see how this works today. Third-party libraries exist, application authors benefit from being able to version them at-will (and not be tied to the same version everybody else uses), and if anything grows sufficiently popular/necessary/duplicated, the functionality can be integrated into the OS (an occurrence of which there are numerous examples).