What I think though is that it’s particularly hard on Linux to fix programs, especially if you are not a developer (which is always the perspective I try to see things from). Most notable architectural difference here between f.e. Windows and Linux would be how you’re able to simply throw a library into the same folder as the executable on Windows for it to use it (an action every common user can do and fully understand). On Linux you hypothetically can work with LD_PRELOAD, but (assuming someone already wrote a tutorial and points to the file for you to grab) even that already requires more knowledge about some system concepts.
You’re not even realizing how advanced of a user on Windows you have to be to realize that putting a DLL in the correct directory will make that the library used by the program running from that directory. Most users won’t even know what a DLL is. Also I work in security professionally and I’ve used this fun little fact to get remote code execution multiple times, so I don’t see how it’s a good thing, especially when you consider that Linux’s primary use case is servers. You can do the exact same thing on Linux, as you said, it’s just opt in behavior. If you are knowledgeable enough to know what a DLL is and what effects placing one in a given folder have, you’re knowledgeable enough to know what a shared library is and how to open a text editor and type LD_LOAD_PATH or LD_PRELOAD. I don’t buy this argument at all.
Linux Desktop is predominantly a volunteer project. It is not backed by millions of dollars and devs from major corporations like the kernel or base system. It is backed by people who are doing way too much work for free. They likely care about accessibility and people using their project, but they also care about the myriad of other issues that they face for the other 90+% of their user base. Is that hugely unfortunate? Yes, it sucks. I wish there was money invested in Linux as a desktop platform, but compared to macOS and Windows it’s fair to say there is a rounding error towards $0.
You’re not even realizing how advanced of a user on Windows you have to be to realize that putting a DLL in the correct directory will make that the library used by the program running from that directory. Most users won’t even know what a DLL is. Also I work in security professionally and I’ve used this fun little fact to get remote code execution multiple times, so I don’t see how it’s a good thing, especially when you consider that Linux’s primary use case is servers. You can do the exact same thing on Linux, as you said, it’s just opt in behavior. If you are knowledgeable enough to know what a DLL is and what effects placing one in a given folder have, you’re knowledgeable enough to know what a shared library is and how to open a text editor and type
LD_LOAD_PATHorLD_PRELOAD. I don’t buy this argument at all.Linux Desktop is predominantly a volunteer project. It is not backed by millions of dollars and devs from major corporations like the kernel or base system. It is backed by people who are doing way too much work for free. They likely care about accessibility and people using their project, but they also care about the myriad of other issues that they face for the other 90+% of their user base. Is that hugely unfortunate? Yes, it sucks. I wish there was money invested in Linux as a desktop platform, but compared to macOS and Windows it’s fair to say there is a rounding error towards $0.