Shared libraries

[Ted Gould]

--=-03q3B006rxCLpW30EoHm
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, I'll just say that I got Yellowdog 3.0, and it comes with
fontconfig 2.1.  For the most part, atleast on PPC, 2.1 sucks.  I didn't
realize how much until I upgraded.  I've now upgraded to 2.2 and
Nautilus doesn't crash, GDM doesn't crash, Dia 0.91 works, etc.  I guess
I could recompile every one of those...

		--Ted

On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 21:30, Victor Odhner wrote:
> (Was Re: a cool Opera feature that Mozilla doesn't have)
>=20
> Lynn David Newton wrote:
>  > Why Galeon depends on an older version of Mozilla ...
>  > and can't run on its own I have no idea.
>=20
> Ayyy, MEN, brother.
>=20
> Bart Garst wrote:
> > shared libraries. It makes sense to use code that
>  > already exists instead of "re-inventing the wheel"
>  > for every package.
>=20
> Sorry Bart, but I'd say shared libraries make *no* sense.
> Downloading a newer version of a library for a newer
> program is not "re-inventing" anything.  The efficiency
> is in sharing the development of libraries, not storage.
> Some programs should be allowed to be newer than others.
> Or older, if necessary.
>=20
> Nice programs don't break each other.  Why can't they all
> just get along, each with its own stuff?  Forced sharing
> is the same "efficiency" that gives us DLL Hell in the
> Microsoft world.
>=20
> We can do better, can't we?  Fer gosh sakes, what's
> $LD_LIBRARY_PATH good for, if it must be the same for
> every application?  This is a big advantage Unices have
> over Windows, but we're not using it to full advantage.
>=20
> Compulsory sharing is a major barrier to Linux acceptance
> by users whose purpose for the system is something beyond
> tinkering with the system.  If you need a mixed bag of
> tools, upgrading any of them risks mangling the whole
> panoply.  Each time you want a new and better tool, you're
> forced to take that risk.  It shouldn't be that way.
>=20
> In this age of the cheap gigabyte, library sharing at the
> application level is a secondary efficiency, and is only
> efficient if it does no harm.  Otherwise it's a damn waste
> of our invaluable time and attention.  It's a bottleneck,
> like having one bathroom per floor in a hotel.
>=20
> Every tool should install independently of every other
> tool, bringing in new library versions as needed without
> stepping on the older ones.  The installer should have a
> resource online to learn about newer library versions
> that are backward compatible to the tool being installed,
> in case they're already available on the system.  But we
> should plan on having a distinct set of libraries for
> each app:  It's a bonus if some sharing is possible.
>=20
> My hobby is not Linux administration, and I don't have
> the time it takes to install a new package on Linux
> and glue together all the broken furniture afterwards.
>=20
> Give me an installer that will free me from being a
> "Linux geek" so I can be a "Perl geek" or just a user.
> There are just so many hours in a lifetime.
>=20
> KevinO wrote:
>  > urpme mozilla ...
>  > urpmi --auto --auto-select --update
>=20
> Talk nice, Kevin.  And oh yeah, a comprehensible
> installer command language would also help.
>=20
> Vic
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>=20

--=-03q3B006rxCLpW30EoHm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+1aiTLE335pRPGp0RAlNLAJwIgQfX5YPBIX2s5PLkWruNc3gkLwCfWqaB
s1350a6eiU1OFrCKDB7WXZQ=
=bNhx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-03q3B006rxCLpW30EoHm--