Re:Oasis: Small statically-linked Linux system
by musicale on Sunday August 14, 2022 @09:36PM
(#32464933)
> Docker
It's strange when an app is packaged with its own private copy of all of the "shared" libraries that it uses.
Many apps that could be a single static binary seem to be packaged as docker images largely for dependency inclusion and some cgroup/namespace isolation.
Re:Oasis: Small statically-linked Linux system
by pjmlp on Sunday August 14, 2022 @04:49PM
(#32462813)
Bell Labs introduced shared objects into UNIX, maybe they should have learned better from other platforms.
Re:Oasis: Small statically-linked Linux system
by benreesman on Sunday August 14, 2022 @04:51PM
(#32462832)
They realized that they had goofed like 25-30 years ago and have been battling their own monster ever since: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/versioned-....
I take the authors of a disaster more seriously when they say it's a disaster, not less.
Re:Oasis: Small statically-linked Linux system
by pjmlp on Monday August 15, 2022 @01:47AM
(#32466263)
And yet the same authors designed Inferno and Limbo, where dynamic loading is everywhere, even at language level.
Talk about being serious.
People pay out the ass in droves via Docker (huge-ass images, clunky composability, cgroup/namespace complexity) and Nix (horror-movie learning curve) and I'm sure other things to get around it / emulate static linking. `sudo apt-whatever upgrade` and pray is pretty much DOA in even low-complexity settings. People are voting with their feet.
You can disagree, and if you're not affiliated with Debian or GNU I might even believe that you come by that opinion honestly, but this gigantic bloc of people who hate it are not all "oblivious".