Originally posted by F.Ultra
View Post
I tell you it's supported. My word is of higher authority than yours, thus I must be right? (sarcasm you know)
Your word is not law. Claims are not arguments. And that's all you did: you claimed it's not supported.
You're not an authority who decides what's supported or not. So you telling me it's "not supported" means exactly zero without backup.
In general, only an authority responsible decides whether something is supported or not. And the Linux kernel has done just that: it supports multiple libc by design.
So tell me again why should I listen to what you say is "not supported"? I don't mean that in a negative way, I mean in a logical way. Because that's just a claim, and claims are not arguments.
Originally posted by F.Ultra
View Post
Originally posted by F.Ultra
View Post
Originally posted by F.Ultra
View Post
Ever considered that some people (3rd party dev) just wants to compile their software once and have it work on all Linux-compatible distros? Really? It hasn't occurred to you after I explicitly told you it's how the majority works? (and why Linux lacks so many apps, this is a statistical fact, if you compare with other ecosystems)
So what happens if my app depends on some feature from musl and yet your distro ships glibc? Just like on Windows, I simply supply musl with my app, right? In Windows "it just works".
Oops, not on Linux, it might cause conflicts. You know, stuff I already said. Rotten design.
A "design" whose solution is to "recompile on each distro" or to "link statically everything" is rotten and stinks like putrid fish
Comment