OSNews

Insignificant when the typical laptop comes with 2gb of ram.



And if the update breaks another app? Shared library systems have their own risk in that they sometimes can't patch a file without breaking another app. This can result in a much longer delay for a patch then you would have with a program that updates directly from the developer.



As I said before small devices take small files. The shared library system isn't needed for embedded development. There are plenty of cell phone operating systems that don't use shared libraries.



There is no click-n-run installer that works across all distros and makes adjustments for all version differences. There isn't even a standard "program files" directory among distros. It's a big mess and there is no installer that reconciles it.

The burden of making such an installer shouldn't be on ISVs. They shouldn't have to mess with scripts to determine which distro you are using, which version, which window manager, etc. They should be able to dump the program files and libraries into an isolated directory and not have to worry about dependency issues. Users should be able to install or uninstall proprietary applications with a control menu.

Distros simply aren't designed to do that. They are designed around shared library repositories. ISVs run into endless problems when working outside the repository system. Many end up just treating all the distros like individual operating systems.

This is what the end result looks like:
http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?platform=linux

Most ISVs don't have the resources to support a dozen operating systems that only make up 1% of the market. Even those that do probably decide that porting isn't worth the effort.

Is this supposed to be a joke?



Meanwhile, every app using that lib is vulnerable. Congrats!



What a killer feature! Meanwhile, other systems like MacOSX can exist on small mobile devices quite well despite universal binaries. Of course, you can strip unwanted architectures from universal binaries.




Not really stupid - rather, it's about a knee jerk reaction when leaving their comfort zone. They mostly have experience with click-and-run installers, and want the same on Linux too. And these days, we have many click-and-run installers for Linux available. There is nothing in Linux that prevents you from making them (or makes it exceedingly hard, either). "

Fully agree with the first poster. Somehow Linux people always come up with good reasons for server or mobile devices that makes it impossible to adopt something that would be user friendly for a desktop situation - and then, they wonder why "the year of Linux on the desktop" still has not arrived ..

Meanwhile, every app using that lib is vulnerable. Congrats!
"

I don't see the logic here. If there is a bug in frobbo-1.1.0 that is fixed by frobbo-1.1-1, your apps will be vulnerable until the shared library gets updated. If all your apps bundle their own copy of frobbo-1.1-0, all the apps will remain vulnerable until they ship a patch of their own.



We're not talking about universal binaries here, but bundling shared libs with the apps vs. providing them centrally. Bloat caused by universal binaries is miniscule in comparison.



Universal binaries don't really make things better for desktop users - just supporting i386 is enough for that segment.