On: On building portable Linux binaries

[pyre]

> 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 → pyre]

http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking/

..comes to my mind. Shared libraries and their advantages are at least.. controversal.

[pyre → sarnowski]

What 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?

[dTal → sarnowski]

That 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.