| > So because that's what you want, let's make what other people want harder. No? I haven't said it should be harder to statically link software. I just said I want to discourage it. I want to advocate that my Linux community resist these kind of ecosystem changes that would, in my opinion, harm the free software community. > Shit like this is why I stick to Windows. Seems like telling on yourself. Compare the results: the software available on Linux distributions vs. the Windows freeware market. > I like having a direct relationship with the developer of the software I use. And what if that developer isn't trustworthy in some way? (See the Arch Linux dev's post that I linked.) > If they update their software with a feature or bug fix I need, I want the update right now Just one example, but I've sometimes gotten updates for Firefox on Arch Linux before the official binaries got released. The maintainers seem to be on top of their game. And never mind the fact that if you're counting on automatic updates, you're assuming that they roll out to everyone simultaneously (often not true) and that automatic updating is always desirable anyway. (Plus a lot of Windows software doesn't update itself at all, so...) |
Obvious choice? WINE wasn't invented because Linux had a great software library.
> And what if that developer isn't trustworthy in some way?
Then you probably shouldn't use their software at all. But that isn't necessarily realistic, which is why I also advocate for sandboxed applications by default, something mobile got right.
> Just one example, but I've sometimes gotten updates for Firefox on Arch Linux before the official binaries got released.
Sure, maybe that happens sometimes for big and popular projects, but there are a lot of more niche projects where what is in the repo is years out of date. Hell, I have to get qbittorrent-nox from a PPA to be up to date and that isn't even very niche.