thelinuxlink.net

Since they use staticly linked libraries one library used in multiple programs has to be dumped in the memory for every program that uses it, unlike dynamic linked ones where it can share between programs. Also its less secure because if the package was build with an older library with security flaws you can't just update the library and have it fixed, all the programs using it need to be updated with the latest library which would probly take a lot longer. I would also assume this would make compiling from source (package manager can't have every package) a pain since you would have to go dependancy hunting.

Although dynamicly linked ones like Debian, RPM, and almost every other package manager uses, there are sometimes breakage between the versions of the libraries (like API changes and different library .so filenames) and you have to install lots of other packages, so if one library doesn't work (for whatever reason) everything depending on it could fail.

I personally like the dynamic way but thats because I'm a geek and can fix issues usually and want the most speed I can get.

What do you guys think?

I'm quite sure you're talking about PC-BSD, because DesktopBSD's package manager is just a frontend to the FreeBSD ports system, which can both install binary packages and compile from sources.

Tsuroerusu wrote:I'm quite sure you're talking about PC-BSD, because DesktopBSD's package manager is just a frontend to the FreeBSD ports system, which can both install binary packages and compile from sources.

OPPS, sorry about that I fixed the title. I saw DesktopBSD screenshots and got mixed up.

For me, dynamic is probably the best solution, because I like the flexibility, I don't know if it's the best solution for the average Windows whiner who is so used to downloading a .exe file and double clicking on it and it then installs.

i wonder why anyone would want to replace freebsd's port with a statically linked packaged system; I undertand that people want a click & install package installation, but instead of a statically linking everything, you could simply:
1) create a binary package of the desired package from the ports; the ports system can do this by default
2) create binary packages for all its dependencies; again, the ports can do this easily.
3) wrap up all the binary packages in a tarball
4) write a script which integrates with gnome/kde/whatever which pkg_add's all packages upon clicking.