This is hilarious
Stali: A new static Linux distribution
121–130 of 233 posts
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd run "pkg-manager upgrade", just like you do with dynamic linking.
Yep but now instead of fetching 1 updated library, you depend on everybody and their cat to rebuild their binaries and publish updated versions.
There is no reason binaries have to be downloaded completely. They can be patched. And we can use rabin fingerprinting for deduplicating to not send duplicate blocks for each binary. Also, don't forget Chrome's approach of patching the disassembly of a binary.
https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/softwar...
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#123Ignore FHS of Linux, it simply sucks. Wow. Just wow. So these guys don't understand UNIX. Like they're going to do it better than the fathers of UNIX at AT&T (who came up with the specification on which the FHS is based). Yeah, OK. Achieve better performance than any other x86_64 or arm distribution, as only statically linked binaries are used Wow. So not only do they not understand UNIX, but now every process will h…
Windows? Have you ever heard of DLLs?
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#124I really like the idea of static linking. Then I think about how I'd patch the next inevitable openssl bug. Then I don't like it as much.
I guess the "suckless" answer would be to not use OpenSSL.
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#125Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#126Shocked that it takes a fringe project to be promoting static linking and cleaning up the filesystem. Would love to hear the linux grandfathers chime in...
> cleaning up the filesystem.
4 years ago: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google Go and Rust promote it. However, deploying web services is different than Linux distro.
I don't know about Go, but Rust doesn't promote it. Rust compiles a whole binary at once (for full program optimisation), but that binary can be a dynamic library or executable. How you then build the operating system on top of that is up to you.
Recently, ripgrep was on the frontpage. It says "Linux binaries are static executables" [0]. If I run ldd on cargo, it spits out the usually glibc dependencies, but Rust libraries are statically linked. It seems to be the default behavior of cargo? I would describe that as "promote static linking".
Personally, I don't judge this as good or bad. There is no simple answer. Static linking has clear disadvantage wrt security patches. On the other hand, it makes little sense to dynamically link tiny libraries, e.g. a queue data structure.
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#128I really like the idea of static linking. Then I think about how I'd patch the next inevitable openssl bug. Then I don't like it as much.
We could use binary patches to reduce download size. SuSE did (does?) it.
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many applications only use parts of libraries, then the linker can throw the unnecessary parts away.
How do I get it to do that? $ cat test.c #include int main() { printf("Hello, World!\n"); } $ gcc -o test1 test.c && ls -lgG test1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 6712 Sep 28 10:24 test1* $ gcc -static -o test1 test.c && ls -lgG test1 -rwxr-xr-x 1 800904 Sep 28 10:24 test1*
probably by using musl instead of glibc
Re: Stali: A new static Linux distribution
#130I really like the idea of static linking. Then I think about how I'd patch the next inevitable openssl bug. Then I don't like it as much.
This is a win if and only if there is a fast, competent, reliable security team for the distro.
Suckless doesn't currently have that capability, so... it's not a win, yet.