Linked by bcavally on Mon 21st Dec 2009 17:18 UTC
Permalink for comment 400654
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-08-26
They aren't built around sharing as much as possible. There are of course shared system libraries in Windows and OSX but they don't expect user installed software to share libraries between each other.
Linux/Unix uses shared libraries... or it DOESN'T, depending on how the distro/project was setup or on how YOU set it up. With Windows and OSX you get only what the OS/app developers dictate.
Yes there are a few obscure distros that don't use the shared library system. Yawn.
Anyways OSX is Unix based but the system engineers ditched the traditional shared library system while Linux distros use the old system which results in dependency issues. The typical user would much rather have the Windows or OSX system instead of the repository system which causes problems when the user wants to install software outside the repository. It's also a major annoyance for proprietary developers who for the most part ignore Linux like the plague in case you hadn't noticed.
The shared library system results in unneeded clusterf--ks and was designed in an era when most programs were small utilities that were used with the command line. A sane system designed around modern needs of both developers and users puts apps in their own directories with their own files and libraries.