The article seems like a running oxymoron to me.
I seem to be negative about a lot of things lately. Maybe I have just become a negative person, or maybe there is more to be negative about...
So, here are my own thoughts on this revolutionary, shiny new OS...
The entire distro is statically linked binaries - no shared libraries, a curious choice but to each his own...
Quote:
|
Stali stands for static Linux, with "static" referring to how all binaries in the distribution are built statically against their libraries. Any routines in the library required by the binary are copied directly into the binary itself, instead of being linked to a shared copy of the library used by multiple programs.
|
And why would they do this? From the article...
Quote:
|
The most obvious benefit is that static binaries have a smaller memory and on-disk footprint.
|
But wait! I had always thought the opposite was true - that is a primary reason for the existence of shared libraries! So a quick DuckDuckGo for "benefits of shared libraries unix" finds
this...
Quote:
Q. What are three benefits of dynamic (shared) linkage of libraries compared to static linkage? What are two situations where static linkage is preferable?
Answer: The primary benefits of shared libraries are that they decrease the memory and disk space used by a system and they enhance maintainability.
|
Good to know I have not been living in a dream world! So this claim is... not true, to say the least.
Another claim...
Quote:
|
Another claimed (sic) about static linking is that it increases the stability of the binaries in question. They're less likely to break if shared libraries are updated, since those binaries don't have dependencies on them... (and) is good for the long-term maintainability of the system.
|
That is just absurd and strange! Again, one of the benefits of shared libraries from the link above and a few billion others...
Quote:
|
Maintainability is as well a most important advantage of dynamic linkage over static... (obviously, no additional comment necessary IMO...)
|
And...
Quote:
|
(The developer) also claims this approach minimizes attack vectors.
|
So when bugs and atteck vectors are fixed in some library, you have the tremendous "benefit" of having to rebuild every single application that was statically linked against it! And that, somehow reduces your exposure to attack vectors...
Ok, ok... I enjoy a good laugh once in a while! Want more?
Quote:
|
"The one major problem I can foresee is that a single driver failure could crash the whole kernel," wrote a blogger when Stali was first proposed. "But if Stali ends up using ONLY truly stable kernel releases, this could be avoided."
|
Of course! Why didn't I think of that! If we just get all our code, including the kernel, from the "truly stable" and "bug free" branches, all our problems will be solved! Every project offers a truly stable, bug free branch so one wonders why some of us use others anyway!
And a final jewel...
Quote:
|
Stali amounts to a kind of proof-of-concept for breaking from long-standing Linux traditions and avoiding current fashions in Linux.
|
Which one might rephrase as abandonment of every proven method and long-standing beneficial design principles in order to start a new fashion or fad based on false claims!
I don't know what annoys me more - the sad state of knowledge, or lack thereof, being passed up the food chain, or the utterly deplorable state of what passes for tech journalism in recent time...
Yep, negative comments seem the most appropriate of late.
