3 ms·
I wonder if containers on the desktop would be useful for this kind of situation. You could have containers for different distributions, or even different vers
by loudmax 12y ago
I wonder if containers on the desktop would be useful for this kind of situation. You could have containers for different distributions, or even different versions of a distribution. For example, one for Ubuntu 14.04 and a different one for 13.10. The containers wouldn't do much, other than take up filesystem space, until they're needed.
This wouldn't work if the software requires a kernel module that isn't packaged for your distribution. It also wouldn't be particularly useful for a file system navigator or something that needs to see the rest of the system. That should still leave in quite a bit of useful software.
- pyre 12y ago> I wonder if containers on the desktop would be useful for this kind of situation. Wouldn't that negate the benefits of things like shared libraries?
- sarnowski 12y agohttp://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/ ..comes to my mind. Shared libraries and their advantages are at least.. controversal.
- dTal 12y agoThat page is disappointingly light on actual arguments. Its points can be summed up thus: -Sun presented a paper saying it wasn't worth it -Plan9 doesn't use dynamic linking and some of its utilities have smaller binaries than similarly named utilities on FreeBSD -People like dynamic linking for the same reason they believe in god -Statically linked binaries aren't as portable as one would like. It reads like more of a rant to be honest.
- pyre 12y agoWhat about the benefit of being able to (e.g.) update OpenSSL across the board? Imagine if each application needed a HeartBleed update because every application had their own copy of OpenSSL. How would that be preferable?