Yeah, but what if you wanted multiple copies of a library and also wanted to let more than one program share each version?

You’d need some sort of system that stores files and lets you name those files and also makes it possible for software to look them up by name.

Oh wait…

Shared libraries suck. It is much better to have a single binary w/ zero library dependencies. The only reason we can't have this is because of sub-standard tooling that makes compiling so expensive that we must suffer shared libraries.

Not really. More like, there are some languages that don't support static builds (Python, glibc) and other languages that don't support dynamic libraries (rust) and I'm so tired and this unit was built to frolic in meadows

shared libs happened because memory was scarce

pretty cool that we are undoing it as a design decision

but it will take a long time

You missed the joke.

Flatpak is not getting rid of shared libraries. They're just reimplementing them in a way that's strictly worse in multiple ways.

Re-read the section "How Flatpak Tries to Save Space: Runtimes and Deduplication" in the article.