Thanks Picard for being an absolute legend at automating all this stuff, i do it on my pc too despite being extremely lazy.

meanwhile russians: what is ads?

puts ritual knife down

I really hope it’s just trolling.

Yeah, but there’s by lot more security improvement by having ability to apply fix for severe vulnerability ASAP than weakening from possible incompativilities. Also, i wonder why i never brought it up, shared libs are shared, so you can use them across many programming languages. So, no, static is not the way to replace containers with dynamic linking, but yes, they share some use cases.

I mean, you could have GUI for some CLI tool.

Yes, I’ve seen that pattern before, but:

1. I wouldn’t expect them to have many libraries in common, other than platform libraries like libc, since they have completely different purposes.
2. I was under the impression that Docker is for server applications. Is it even possible to run a GUI app inside a Docker container?

Also, if you are going to make something that have more than one binary

If they’re meant to run on the same machine and are bundled together in the same container image, I would call that a questionable design choice.

In the time i was thinking about some kind of toolkit installed though distrobox. Distrobox, basically, allows you to use anything from containers as if it was not. It uses podman, so i guess it could be impossible to use docker for GUI, although i cant really tell.

inlining is, as matklad once put it, the mother of all other optimizations. Dynamic linking leaves potentially a lot of performance on the table.

Yes, but static linking means you’ll get security and performance patches with some delay, while dynamic means you’ll get patches ASAP.

That seems like a questionable design choice.

I mean, you could have GUI for some CLI tool. Then you would need to run binary GUI, and either run binary CLI from GUI or have it as daemon. Also, if you are going to make something that have more than one binary, you’ll get more space overhead for static linking than for containers

Compared to the downsides of using a container image (duplication of system files like libc, dynamic linking overhead, complexity, etc), this is not a compelling advantage.

Man, that’s underestimating compiling time and frequency of updates of various libs, and overestimating overhead from dynamic linking (it’s so small it’s calculated in CPU cycles). Basically, dynamic linking reduces update overhead, like with static linking you’ll need to download full binary every update, even if lib is tiny, while with dynamic you’ll have to download only small lib.

Still, it’s going to take some time, every time some dependency(of dependency(of dependency)) changes(cause you don’t wanna end up with critical vulnerability). Also, if app going to execute some other binary with same dependency X, dependency X gonna be in memory only once.

It sounds like it should be other way, but same.

I do -h or --help in those cases. Usually, this is enough.

Well, if you would create it - it would be created faster.

They could, but it will only mean that you’ll need separate account for porn, and most redditors do exactly this.

It’s only matter of time when we’ll get hentai oriented instance.

That’s why semver exists. Major-update-number.Minor-update-number.Patch-number Usually, you don’t care about patches, they address efficency of things inside of lib, no Api changes. Something breaking could be in minor update, so you should check changelogs to see if you gonna make something about it. Major version most likely will break things. If you’ll understand this, you’ll find dynamic linking beneficial(no need to recompile on every lib update), and containers will eliminate stability issues cause libs won’t update to next minor/major version without tests.

Yes, you don’t have to dynamically link dependecies, but you don’t want to recompile your app just to change dependency version.

Yes, i agree, it looks awesome.

Well, i’ll wait till 1th july and nuke my account if my app won’t work.

This is too radical. Creators would be poor. Medium companies wouldn’t be able to survive just because they would lose way to get new customers. If anything, it would take monopoly to new level. Economical disaster.

1. Idea is that you can have different apps that require different versions of dependency X, and that could stop you with traditional package managment, but would be OK with containers
2. Haven’t seen macOS 7,but 100% agree on Windows 95. 2000 is better though.
3. Still can’t believe someone actually believe they are
4. 100% agree
5. Sometimes you just have 1 hour free, and that’s not enough to go home, but too big to just kill it. That’s when laptop is great. Also, sometimes going outside and do stuff feels better than doing it at home.

I’m 18 years old. I legitimately thought command line is something for hackers more than 80% of my life. Yet, rest 20% of life was enough to make me love it. And it’s kinda funny how it went CLI is main thing for computers -> trying to make everything GUI -> now CLI is popular again