What makes you say conditions have changed? Why should I have to wait for everything that consumes OpenSSL downstream to be updated/recompiled to fully patch my system?
It's easy to see why sysadmin types like shared libraries, even though that ability is an accidental side-effect of an architecture originally developed as a way to save disk space, but as an end user I strongly prefer isolated applications which depend only on the base OS. Updating one program and thereby inadvertently updating a bunch of other unrelated programs is an anti-feature for me as an end user, because it means I can't trust the state of my system. I don't want to waste time figuring out why things no longer work the way they used to; I want to keep on using my computer for its intended purposes. Therefore I, as an end user, update software as infrequently as possible, and only do so when I don't have anything else I need to do with the computer for the rest of the day, just in case I have to waste a bunch of time figuring out why things don't work anymore.
If I were a sysadmin, and maintaining the computer were my job, this would not be a problem, because figuring out why things don't work and fixing them is what I would be trying to use the computer for; but as an end-user, I just want things to work.
If every application were built with static linking, and system libraries only updated with an explicit system upgrade, I would be much more likely to upgrade frequently, because it would be possible to know and limit the scope of churn implied by any given upgrade act.
Are you suggesting that the original purpose of shared libraries relates to patching software?
Others seem to be suggesting that the emergence of dynamic linking was a response to general limitations in secondary storage and memory. Limitations that no longer exist.
I'm not sure I would call this a "feature" because I think of "features" as being intentional and if marssaxman is correct, this justification for shared library use was an accidental side effect.
But I have limited knowledge of the history behind dynamic linking. Hence my questions. I am just curious.
If I were a sysadmin, and maintaining the computer were my job, this would not be a problem, because figuring out why things don't work and fixing them is what I would be trying to use the computer for; but as an end-user, I just want things to work.
If every application were built with static linking, and system libraries only updated with an explicit system upgrade, I would be much more likely to upgrade frequently, because it would be possible to know and limit the scope of churn implied by any given upgrade act.