Linked by Andrew Youll on Tue 19th Jul 2005 15:57 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews PC-BSD 0.7.8 has been released and I also recently conducted an interview with PC-BSD Project leader Kris Moore.
Thread beginning with comment 6262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Looks awesome
by on Tue 19th Jul 2005 18:01 UTC in reply to "Looks awesome"

Member since:

> I also love the way this guy has solved the dependency
> hell problem. They set it up so that all applications
> and required dependencies are stored in its own folder.

Yes, that's very clever. Not only clever, but awesome and gorgeous: If there's a bug in a library, not only one package needs to be fixed, but dozens.

It's the best feature that one could copy from Microsoft Windows[TM]. Apart from that, there are enough UNIX operating systems for x86 computers.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Looks awesome
by on Tue 19th Jul 2005 18:38 in reply to "RE: Looks awesome"
Member since:

>Yes, that's very clever. Not only clever, but awesome >and gorgeous: If there's a bug in a library, not only >one package needs to be fixed, but dozens.

>It's the best feature that one could copy from Microsoft >Windows[TM]. Apart from that, there are enough UNIX >operating systems for x86 computers.

ahhh no. You're right about each package but as far as there being enough UNIX OS's for x86.... hmmm.. who makes that determination... you?

Sounds like sour grapes to me. At least this guy is trying to do something original and attempt to solve problems.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Looks awesome
by on Tue 19th Jul 2005 19:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Looks awesome"
Member since:

This really is a double standard. Suppose Windows used a system similar to ports. Could you imagine the outcry if microsoft was able to upgrade the libs of all your various software on your box? Talk about crazy, this would drive me nuts! Everybody would hate microsoft's guts for it ;) But with *nix its ok to do it?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Looks awesome
by JLF65 on Tue 19th Jul 2005 19:46 in reply to "RE: Looks awesome"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

If there's a bug in a library, not only one package needs to be fixed, but dozens.

Dozens is probably an overstatement, but it is a valid observation. However, look at it this way - I'd rather replace ten copies of a library (if you need to, most of the programs will work fine with the original lib) than to replace one copy of a lib and have it break ten programs.

Sometimes, updating a lib means all programs using the lib must be updated as well. By having a seperate copy for each program, you don't need to update programs which only changed because a lib changed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Looks awesome
by jayc on Tue 19th Jul 2005 20:33 in reply to "RE[2]: Looks awesome"
jayc Member since:
2005-07-06

Dozens is probably an overstatement, but it is a valid observation. However, look at it this way - I'd rather replace ten copies of a library (if you need to, most of the programs will work fine with the original lib) than to replace one copy of a lib and have it break ten programs.

Dozens is actually an understatement. And this isn't about bug fixes. It's about security.

"apt-cache rdepends zlib1g" returns 1,848 packages that use zlib. Imagine if a user just had 10% of these packages installed. That's 184 pieces of software or libraries that would have to be ugpraded. And 184 of those must be upgraded to plug the security hole.

Shared libraries solve this problem by centrally updating a single library. The linked programs never even have to know about it.

Reply Parent Score: 1