On 2/17/21 4:19 PM, L A Walsh wrote:
On 2021/02/16 23:30, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
Seems you mix up Tumbleweed as rolling release distribution with openSUSE Leap/SLE as stable distribution. In the first case, you have always the newest stuff, in the later case, you have stable interfaces, with the drawback, this is old code.
Windows gets around it by having multiple so's -- installing the 'so' that each program compiled with.
That's not really a solution though. Having ten copies of libpng on your harddisk means you will have to update ten copies of libpng when there is a vulnerability.
Tumbleweed tries the best to provide all the new, shiny features in a stable way, Leap and SLE tries eveything to stay compatible without providing all the new features.
--- That answers my question about how many corporations are using TW.
It's rather obvious that a rolling release distribution isn't something that corporations should use. You don't want your database server to become offline because the daemon won't restart after an update because the database format changed from one major version to another.
Though to be honest, I want to update my linux system about as often as I change Win OS's. Win 7 was out for about 12 years w/support. I was an early adopter and am still using it. But never was Win7 keeping me from using new programs (well until recently). How many progs from an opensuse release from 2008 would work on a system from today?
How much do you pay for openSUSE and how much did you pay for Windows?
Which itself is already incorrect, you can install multiple versions of glibc in parallel, but that's really not easy and you don't want that as normal user.
---- The user doesn't keep the multiple lib versions in Windows -- the OS does. It's not a matter of "can't" its a matter of the linux world being about 15 years behind in supporting new progs and old on the same OS.
Multiple copies of the same library is a security problem which is why Linux distributions avoid that.
MS used to have 'dll/so' "hell", because they used to only be able to have 1 copy of a lib loaded in shared mem by the OS, but they fixed it so different progs can have different versioned libs -- why hasn't linux gone that route?
Shipping every program with every shared library it needs isn't a solution, it's a hack. I would argue that there isn't really the perfect solution to the shared library problem, although I think Flatpak does the balance between easy installation and handling of security updates and shared library deduplication pretty well. Adrian