Re:What do dynamic linking and communism have in common?
by pedrocr on Friday October 23, 2009 @02:21AM
(#898370)
There are clearly downsides to dynamic linking but static linking would fail spectacularly when there is a bug in a common library, like libc. One of two things happens:
- Some applications are not updated and retain the bug. Extremely dangerous if it is a security bug.
- Suddenly your package manager needs to update almost every single application on your system. All the packages in my Ubuntu system is a total of ~1GB. Now that you statically compiled them prepare for a very long download.
The problems presented are largely solved in integrated distributions (like Linux distributions or Apple software). Where this isn't as clear is when external parties are trying to distribute software in a non-coordinated way (most apps in Windows, non-Apple apps in OSX). In those cases static linking probably makes sense but even then I'd say you are better off linking dynamically to fairly standard stuff like libc.
- Some applications are not updated and retain the bug. Extremely dangerous if it is a security bug.
- Suddenly your package manager needs to update almost every single application on your system. All the packages in my Ubuntu system is a total of ~1GB. Now that you statically compiled them prepare for a very long download.
The problems presented are largely solved in integrated distributions (like Linux distributions or Apple software). Where this isn't as clear is when external parties are trying to distribute software in a non-coordinated way (most apps in Windows, non-Apple apps in OSX). In those cases static linking probably makes sense but even then I'd say you are better off linking dynamically to fairly standard stuff like libc.