Total Shared Library Death

Frick this dystopian updooter backdoor piece of shit. If your program links dynamically you have created malware period.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's the matter with dynamic linking and loading?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's fricking moronic.
      https://drewdevault.com/dynlib.html

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >includes awk, go, and python scripts
        Do baseddev’s really want to show their language versatility that badly or did he just have these lying around?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Even israelite Segfault don't like dynamic linking.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Name 1 (one) way to do hot code reloading without compiling your code into a dynamic library

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Just write a just in time compiler and put your code on the stack, lol.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Use a scripting language instead

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ask systemd to hold all your file descriptors and then re-exec. Duh.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dynamic linking is how computers work. C/Unix put artificial limitations between programs.

      What is the point of dynamic linking? Just to save space, or what?

      You have code on your computer so you call the code. That's the point.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fake news, lying poster

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dynamic linking is a large part of the reason why Linux has such awful binary backwards compatibility.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ld_preload
      boom you're owned

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dynamic linking is what almost let most linux servers to have a backdoor in sshd

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dynamic linking has always been a philosophical choice, rather than one of merit.
      It was chosen as a hedge against proprietary software, a constant moving target of compatability is not enough for a single developer to handle. It's either open up and let distro maintainers help or be on your own.

      People claim dynamic linking has merits but the only practical one is less space consumed, it otherwise requires much more developer time to test every dependent on its dependency. This is something hobbyists may love doing but the real world doesn't.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So many morons ITT

        >It was chosen as a hedge against proprietary software
        >This is something hobbyists may love doing but the real world doesn't.
        Dynamic linking was pushed by corporations moron. Not hobbyists.
        Sun was the first to push it [1]. Windows was always big on it.
        [1] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs414/2001FA/sharedlib.pdf

        Dynamic linking is a large part of the reason why Linux has such awful binary backwards compatibility.

        Windows is big on backwards compatibility and does dynamic linking.
        Static linking doesn't have a concept of "backwards compatibility" at all.
        The concept of a stable ABI is meaningless without dynamic linking.

        Best solution is the one usually used on Windows and macOS: Use dynamic libraries, but bundle them with your program instead of installing them separately.
        That way, your program is self-contained and you avoid "DLL hell", but users can still upgrade the library if needed (security issues, LGPL compliance, whatever).
        I also find it simplifies the build process. I have simple, fast, custom build scripts for my program but often need to use libraries with slow elaborate build systems (and which sometimes need to be built with a different compiler). Dynamic libraries make for a cleaner, sharper, more self-contained library-program interface.

        Windows doesn't really bundle them, rather developers mostly stay within the bloated .NET framework that supports almost everything they need.
        Bundling dlls is actually just a worse form of static linking. You lose all the benefits of dynamic linking in exchange for none of the benefits of static linking.

        Dynamic linking is what almost let most linux servers to have a backdoor in sshd

        Dynamic linking also meant Linux servers could just update OpenSSL to mitigate Heartbleed.

        It's fricking moronic.
        https://drewdevault.com/dynlib.html

        In my tests, a static musl binary is around 40% larger than a dynamic glibc.
        You also get a slower libc. glibc obviously has problems and I totally get the appeal of something simple like musl, but we should remain factual.
        Furthermore, dead code elimination is very overrated. Libraries often have internal dependencies so you end up linking half the library anyways.
        That's why Go and Rust binaries are frickhuge.
        Static linking only works if you're extremely autistic and make sure everything is as minimal as possible.
        In my opinion, if you want to statically link some library, you should just fork and embed the library code directly in the source repository, instead of relying on filesystem dependencies.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Sun was the first to push it [1].
          Dynamic linking is older than C and Unix. Your paper doesn't say anything about Sun being the first anything with dynamic linking, not even for Unix. It actually says the opposite.

          The new VM system uses these features internally, so that the act of exec’ing a program is reduced to
          the establishment of copy-on-write mappings to the file containing the program. A ‘‘shared library’’ is
          added to the address space in exactly the same way, using the general file mapping mechanism. The use of
          files in this way originated with MULTICS [ORGA 72], and the use of file page mapping to incorporate
          library support at execution time was established with TENEX [MURP 72] and its evolution as Digital
          Equipment’s TOPS-20. Comparable approaches have been applied with UNIX-based systems as described
          in [SZNY 86] and [DOWN 84].

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Dynamic linking was pushed by corporations moron. Not hobbyists.
          Yet it is only hobbyists that screech about things going away from the dogma of shared libraries
          If it really was the corpo way, why did the Linux community at large, including hobbyists decided it should be the only way to handle libraries?
          Why did it take so long to figure out how to package applications with their own shit?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Windows doesn't really bundle them
          Go look in the installation dir of basically any non-trivial Windows program. You'll see loads of DLLs and most of them won't have anything to do with .NET.
          >You lose all the benefits of dynamic linking in exchange for none of the benefits
          I explained what the benefits of this approach are. The big one is that you CAN replace the library if you want to, but a known-good one is provided so you don't need to. It also simplifies development.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Don't listen to this parrot imbecile, post full of lies

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Turn all chinks into christmas ornaments

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      keyed https://youtu.be/k0uE_chSnV8

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      White people doing that in the past made them realize they needed communism and nukes moron

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        didnt happen but i wish it did

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Based static linker. Dynamic linking is degeneracy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/a0SlebB.jpg

      Frick this dystopian updooter backdoor piece of shit. If your program links dynamically you have created malware period.

      Based. FRICK DYNAMIC LINKING.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]
      Based. FRICK DYNAMIC LINKING.

      BASED!!!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It made sense when hard drives were 10MB and the size of a clothes dryer and took 10x the power.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    GOVERNMENT TV SPY CAMERA IDEALLY THOUSANDS OF PERFECTLY POSITIONED SHARED LIBRARIES ROOTKIT DDOS BOTNET BING.COM COMPUTER GOD

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What is the point of dynamic linking? Just to save space, or what?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      In theory it also needs less RAM at runtime and makes updating easier, but I really don't think the added complexity ever makes this worth it.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Common Lisp has both static and dynamic linking at once. All the benefits with none of the problems.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      (this `(is (how ('an . average)
      #(LISP ,(program (looks (like*~~*~~*~~)

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You're right, much uglier than C's function pointers and C++'s templates.
        using std::frickwad::shitbag::ShitBag;
        template <template <typename T> class CumRag, typename T, std::enable_if_v<std::is_same_v<T, ShitBag>>
        auto uglyFrickingSyntax(CumRag<T>&& cumRag) -> decltype(asswipe<T>(cumRag[0]) {
        return asswipe<T>::cumRag[0];
        }

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          btfo

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          ok I'm learning lisp

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Good lad.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically have we needed dynamic linking/loading since the we got HDDs bigger than 8MB?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Was more about saving RAM more then anything back when memory was extremely expensive in the Digital PDP mini computer Unix days. Back when every kilobyte mattered greatly. Dynamically linking allowed multiple applications to use the same libraries in memory and made sure you were rarely if ever loading duplicate libraries.
      Its more like it stopped being relivent when consumer computers started having 8MB+ of memory.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >back when memory was extremely expensive in the Digital PDP mini computer Unix days.
        Unix didn't have dynamic linking back then, only static linking. Dynamic linking was from real operating systems.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Unix has had dynamic linking since before people suspected Liberace was gay. It didn't have it at the start but it did by the mid-1970s.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Best solution is the one usually used on Windows and macOS: Use dynamic libraries, but bundle them with your program instead of installing them separately.
    That way, your program is self-contained and you avoid "DLL hell", but users can still upgrade the library if needed (security issues, LGPL compliance, whatever).
    I also find it simplifies the build process. I have simple, fast, custom build scripts for my program but often need to use libraries with slow elaborate build systems (and which sometimes need to be built with a different compiler). Dynamic libraries make for a cleaner, sharper, more self-contained library-program interface.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Dynamic linking le bad
    >Malware "period"
    >moronic
    >Chinks
    >BASED!!!
    >useful back when memory was expensive in the Unix days (literally misinformation)
    I'm sure not a single anon on this thread is capable of defining what a function is without having to ponder for five years or google it.
    More and more I'm convinced that there are no real people on the internet. It is a matrix created by the state to distract us from important matters and to force us to "think" "correctly".
    I guess I'm gonna just kill myself, at this point

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      please go ahead

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Dynamic linking le bad
      it is le bad doe

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      dont then they win. at least commit domestic terrorism first (we (cia) will even provide explosives for you if you want)

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    you can take my dlopen from my cold dead hands you frickin troony googler

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is only really a problem on Linux where all apps are required to use the same libraries (and the same version). Based windows apps come packaged with the libraries they where designed for. Global libraries should only be for OS level stuff.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >offer sent

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *