[speedplane]

> I don't think that being able to replace a library at runtime is a useful enough feature to justify the high maintenance cost of shared libraries.

We’re moving to a world where every program is containerized or sandboxed. There is no more real “sharing” of libraries, everything gets “statically linked” in a Docker image anyway.

[pjc50]

I bet someone will invent shared content for Docker containers in the next few years as a disk-saving measure.

[codegladiator]

That's called volume mounts and/or base images ?

[regularfry]

If I do an `apt-get install` of the same packages in different containers, with anything different at all before it in the Dockerfiles, there's no way to share a common layer that includes the package contents between those images.

You could volume mount /usr and chunks of /var to help, but I'm not sure that would be sane.

[radicalbyte]

There are storage systems which do this, de-dupe on disk level.

[Glavnokoman]

In the cloud. Otherwise it is very seldom justified.

[littlecranky67]

Not using Docker, but Snap/Flatpak use similar approaches.

[Glavnokoman]

Snap is one really sick idea. I do not understand how could it ever take off.