On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 16:04 +0100, Mike Hearn wrote: > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 09:42:37 -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > find that argument about statically linking... satisifyingly ironic... > > considering part of you argument for installing it by default is that > > users don't really caring about a a few 3 mb compatibility packages on > > the system here or there. > > It's not about disk space, it's memory usage and download sizes. And security. Remember all the applications that had to be updated because they statically linked zlib instead of benefiting from a updating a single dynamically linked library? There a good reasons for the mess of interdependencies in Linux. That said, the Windows world has been shipping OS libraries with applications for some time. Sure it's ugly, but you make your choices and you live with their consequences. Anyone using proprietary software on Linux should expect some bumps. As for F/OSS, try tapping the user community to find someone willing to do the integration. If there's enough demand, someone will eventually step forward. -- Stuart Jansen <sjansen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Guru Labs, L.C.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
