Re: spatial stuff detail

Again, this has drifted far, far offtopic- can you guys /please/ take
this off-list?

On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 08:38, Guido Schimmels wrote:
> Am 24.09.2003 10:51:57 schrieb(en) Ross Burton:
> > On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 00:12, Guido Schimmels wrote:
> > > Because those 50M is not the download size of the fixed apps, but
> > > results from the chain reaction triggered by the uncounted cross-
> > > dependencies of Debian's messed up dependency graph. That is one of
> > the
> > > reasons for the increasing popularity of source based distros. Of
> > > course source based distros are like waving the white flag and  
> > admit
> > 
> > > that Linux is doomed a geek toy.
> > 
> > Erm, what are you smoking?
> > 
> > If the ABI of a library changes, everything which links to it needs  
> > to
> > be recompiled.
> ...which in turn means you have to recompile a lot of other things  
> which depend on it. There are library to library dependencies, not only  
> library to application dependencies. And with a source based distro you  
> can limit such library to library to dependencies to your personal  
> needs.
> > Having a source-based distribution may cure cancer
> > and
> > end world poverty, but it will not remove the fact that if a library
> > changes ABI, all applications which link to it need to be recompiled.
> > Of course, ABI changes don't happen often.  For example, a new zlib
> > was
> > released not too long ago (last year?) which fixed a major security
> > hole. This did not change ABI. This did not force a recompile of all
> > software which would have lead to a huge download. It resulted in a
> > small download for a single library, which fixed all software.  Try
> > doing that with a library which is contained inside each and every
> > AppFolder you have installed.
> I'm getting sick of this strawman argument. Yeah, statically linking  
> zlib, libpng etc. would be silly. Where did I advocate something like  
> that? A 300M base system, a 300M base system, a 300M base system...
> Please read the Cinelerra installation instructions and then tell me if  
> they are out of their mind. Or maybe, just maybe, have valid reasons.
> What counts is that I can rely on my applications __now__ . When the  
> apps you are using are so hopelessly broken, that you expect having to  
> upgrade them weekly, that really should make you think.
> Considering the codesize of OpenOffice, you should have to download a  
> security patch almost daily. Why is this not the case? But suddenly, if  
> I link fribidi statically into Abiword, you folks want to make me  
> believe there is some dramatic probability my users will have to  
> upgrade the whole of Abiword because of a security hole found in  
> fribidi. The 4M application executable obviously is next to immune to  
> vulnerabilities. But the moment you split a few functions out into a  
> library, somehow magically the code of this new library experiences a  
> 1000 fold increased likelyhood of buffer overflows.
> No distributor is able to QA thousands of libraries. I would like to  
> know what __you__ are smoking if you believe that. I know I will trust  
> the application developer more to offer me a working package than some  
> underpaid packaging monkeys.
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]