It also makes updating easier. When a lib has a bug it can be fixed by updating one package. If every application on your system was statically linked, each one of these would have to be updated individually.
But then you definitely wouldn’t have errors with different apps requiring different versions of the same library.
That’s why libfoo.so.1.2.3, libfoo.so.1.2.4, libfoo.so.1.3.9, etc. exist. Flatpak also exists. Just link to a specific version of a freedesktop.org Runtime.
Yes, it does and while I’m not a pedant about saving every possible byte in a time of terabyte SSDs, static linking everything is just insanely wasteful.
This seems really cool!
But dynamic linking saves space AFAIK
It also makes updating easier. When a lib has a bug it can be fixed by updating one package. If every application on your system was statically linked, each one of these would have to be updated individually.
But then you definitely wouldn’t have errors with different apps requiring different versions of the same library.
That’s why
libfoo.so.1.2.3
,libfoo.so.1.2.4
,libfoo.so.1.3.9
, etc. exist. Flatpak also exists. Just link to a specific version of a freedesktop.org Runtime.Yes, it does and while I’m not a pedant about saving every possible byte in a time of terabyte SSDs, static linking everything is just insanely wasteful.