<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:aiA86oRHieFv4kTn@foursquare.net">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">1. How else to run two different versions of an application, each using
different library versions?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
You can install as many shared library versions as you want.
Multiple major versions can run side by side.
It's usually only the dev symlink that conflicts, but there are
ways around that.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">It's not the 1980s any more, we do some things differently now. For one
thing, there's been exponential growth in software choices where
incompatibilities can arise.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">
I'd rather share memory across as many shared libraries as possible,
than have multiple slightly different libc's and libz's and libssl's
statically linked in unsharable apps.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>And by memory, you mean disk storage. File system cache memory.</p>
<p>Cause, if it is a memory of running instances/processes, than
"shared" becomes a concern.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:aiA86oRHieFv4kTn@foursquare.net">
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">It may not be the 80's, but memory size still matters to some.
In most cases, I view static linking == waste.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Was an actual injection step in that xz story using a dynamic
linking process? Mangled, whatever. But this is an attack point.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>