sdijf8sdhf

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by sdijf8sdhf 11y ago

   That's just, like, your opinion, man; tell it to the retrocomputing folks. IMHO, the reluctance to "finish" a project and the stigma against something being "in maintenance mode" is responsible for most of the bloat
2. 2.▲
   by sdijf8sdhf 11y ago

   It's a libc implementation for christ's sake. If ever a library should remain in stasis, it would be a libc implementation.
3. 3.▲
   by sdijf8sdhf 11y ago

   Chill out. I didn't say dynamic linking was "good" or "bad," or that it isn't right to put security first, just that this isn't as great of a benefit as it appears to be if library devs aren't careful
4. 4.▲
   by sdijf8sdhf 11y ago

   I agree, and I think this approach works very well on Windows, where Microsoft has a serious commitment to backwards compatibility at any cost. But in my experience, there wasn't anywhere near the same level of appreciation for binary
5. 5.▲
   by sdijf8sdhf 11y ago

   Guess I was wrong about glibc, so I removed that from the comment. I seem to remember fairly frequent full system updates, with it as the center, when I used Linux, but it might have been another library at fault.
6. 6.▲
   by sdijf8sdhf 11y ago

   Dynamic linking ends up being a wash or a net negative for # of recompiles when you consider that developers of important dynamic libraries break binary compatibility all the time on non-security-related changes.