And right about here is where the claims that dynamic linking is better for everyone&#x27;s security update schedule just falls apart, for this reader.<p>Dynamic linking does not make it easier to update things.  There, I said it.<p>Updating things confidently and safely requires -- as the article wisely references -- testing those things, and the entire matrix of other things they interact with.<p>Static vs dynamic linking simply doesn&#x27;t register.  In <i>either</i> case, the newer versions need to be built, and then tested together.<p>The only thing dynamic linking does is make it possible for distros to hamstring themselves[^] by tossing <i>everything</i> into one big cauldron, so <i>nothing</i> can be upgraded because it requires <i>testing too much at once</i>.<p>And here&#x27;s the endgame.  &quot;Is OpenSSL getting updated on $distro?&quot;  &quot;Nope.&quot;<p>Sigh.<p>---<p>[^] And this is a red herring, in turn: dynamic linking isn&#x27;t the real enemy either; it&#x27;s the global sloppile approach to sharing dynamic linked libraries that really causes the mess.  NixOS and others like that still use dynlinking, and yet have successfully immunized themselves from these problems by using content-addressable library versioning.  So let&#x27;s stop with the &quot;dynlinking is better for security updates&quot; claims.  It&#x27;s not.  It&#x27;s either unrelated at best, or actively a ball-and-chain making things harder and slower, and I submit as evidence OpenSSL versions across these distros.