7 ms·
"We want to allow app vendors to write their programs against very specific frameworks, under the knowledge that they will end up being executed with the exact
by ris 12y ago
"We want to allow app vendors to write their programs against very specific frameworks, under the knowledge that they will end up being executed with the exact same set of libraries chosen."
Do we? So if lazy vendor X doesn't get around to updating their application which "depends" on a version of zlib/openssl/libpng that turns out to be horribly insecure, we can't swap in a patched version?
I don't see how this is any better than the library bundling problem.
- akira2501 12y agoDon't we? I thought this was just called "static linking."
- kjs3 12y agoIt is, or as I like to call it, "keeping that old insecure library around forever".
- jvoorhis 12y agoThis could be done by freezing the ABI of a runtime, allowing compatible patched versions to be swapped in. (Now you rely on the runtime's vendor to do this.)
- ldng 12y agoOkay. Something I'm not sure I see clearly, that mean you'll have as many runtime as there is ABI ? The way I it right now is that I can have a Gnome 3 runtime at version 3.20.1 compiled with let's say openssl for all my Fedora binaries depending on Gnome and another complete runtime at the same version because the Firefox I've donwloaded from mozilla.com has been compiled on an opensuse the rely on gnutls ? The example is made up but as far as I understand it could happen, right ? It feels like a lot of wated space for one app. And the scheme is supposed to cater for embedded ? I'm puzzled. I missed something ?