Linked by David Adams on Fri 16th Jul 2010 19:43 UTC, submitted by broomfighter
Linux "The Portable Linux Apps project brings the ideal of "1 app, 1 file" to Linux. Applications are able to run on all major distributions irrespective of their packaging systems - everything the application needs to run is packaged up inside of it. There are no folders to extract, dependencies to install or commands to enter: "Just download, make executable, and run!"" A follow-up article describes how it works, and how to transform debian packages into AppImages. The packages don't include libraries, so the system won't need to update the same library in each individual app.
Thread beginning with comment 433843
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This leads to interesting situations
by error32 on Sat 17th Jul 2010 12:24 UTC
error32
Member since:
2008-12-10

Imagine there is a library that is used in a lot of packages, just not so much that their system will assume it is there. Hence the library get packed with the apps.
Then there is a fatal security flaw unveiled in this library. The user will then have to update each application that uses the library instead of just a library packages...


Why not throw all rational thought away and just all link static instead of dynamic.

Edited 2010-07-17 12:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Then there is a fatal security flaw unveiled in this library. The user will then have to update each application that uses the library instead of just a library packages...


Security flaws are rarely in libraries, and the entire updating system could be automated.

There is also a major security flaw with the shared library system in that an application cannot immediately patch itself. We've seen seen this plenty of times with Firefox where the Windows and OSX versions were patched faster.


Why not throw all rational thought away and just all link static instead of dynamic.


I wouldn't call the current system rational when:

1. Dependency issues can break programs.

2. Dependency issues can require an OS update just to run a newer version of a program.

3. Program files are allowed to be scattered across the system.

4. The entire system requires far more labor via package maintenance compared to systems where programs and libraries are independent.

5. It increases porting costs for ISVs


You know it was one thing to defend the status quo back in 2001 but when Linux has been at 1% since then I say it is time to give the reformers a chance. The status quo isn't working.

You know who the status quo works for? Microsoft. When you work against the reformers you keep Linux exactly where Microsoft wants it to be.

Reply Parent Score: 2