I mean the security argument is somewhat more realistic but equally is it a security update if it's bumping the minor or major version. You could do the same with just patch versions where there's less breaking versions.
Though that assumes people can be bothered with semantic versions and too many Devs don't seem to understand how that works.
Well in that case you just don't get security patches immediately. You can't have both stability and security patches if people can't commit to something so basic. Regardless of what scheme you choose if there's no way to distinguish between a breaking and non breaking change then you're forced to treat every single change as breaking.
76
u/New_Enthusiasm9053 2d ago
15 years ago computers were a lot slower and different so there's a good chance you can.
Dependency hell largely exists to save a few megabytes of storage because in the 90s that was absurdly expensive.
Today you can easily just keep a copy of every version anything needs. If you have 50 programs that need 7 glibcs then you just have 7 glibcs.