4 ms·

I did not know about Gobo either. Why isn't everyone using it yet? Directories as packages, multi-versioning made easy... Use it now!

by Iv 10y ago

digi_owl 10y ago
Dunno. Maybe because it is largely made out of shell scripts and symlinks, and not laden with buzzwords?
nkuttler 10y ago
The "how can this possibly work" section shows the problem: System libraries are links to app directories. Basically, you end up bundling the same libs over and over again in your applications. Just imagine having several identical copies of gtk, qt, webkit, etc.
- digi_owl 10y ago
  Not quite. As long as multiple programs use the same lib version, you only install it once just as with RPM or DEB. but if another program needs a older or newer version you can install that version in parallel without it disturbing the rest.
  - nkuttler 10y ago
    If you can't distribute individual directories/packages as stand-alone apps this entire exercise seems pointless, it just becomes a fancy filesystem hierarchy.
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      Ah ok, now i get it. You are stuck thinking devops and containers...
    - Iv 10y ago
      Wait, neither debian nor ubuntu distribute packages as stand alone app. They distribute it without their libs and add a layer of dependency management (I did not look into Gobo's but I guess it is similar though apparently more permissive) And I don't see either what prevents one to distribute an application as standalone by stuffing all the libs needed in the application directory.
      - nkuttler 10y ago
        That's my point, you don't gain anything except a different directory structure. And if you stuff everything into one directory, size.
Filligree 10y ago
Maybe because it's not ambitious enough? Nix (and NixOS) does most of the same things, and then some, achieving more of the potential benefits. If you're going to break compatibility anyway, you might as well do it in a big way. A 2x improvement isn't enough to be worth the cost. 10x might be.
- Iv 10y ago
  They don't break the compatibility. The old hierarchy is still there.
ufo 10y ago
I think one of the problems is that is a source-based distribution, which is a pretty niche thing nowadays.
- Iv 10y ago
  I am more wondering about the filesystem organization than the distribution itself.

I did not know about Gobo either. Why isn't everyone using it yet? Directories as packages, multi-versioning made easy... Use it now!

by Iv 10y ago

I did not know about Gobo either. Why isn't everyone using it yet? Directories as packages, multi-versioning made easy... Use it now!

digi_owl 10y ago

Dunno. Maybe because it is largely made out of shell scripts and symlinks, and not laden with buzzwords?

nkuttler 10y ago

The "how can this possibly work" section shows the problem: System libraries are links to app directories. Basically, you end up bundling the same libs over and over again in your applications. Just imagine having several identical copies of gtk, qt, webkit, etc.

digi_owl 10y ago
Not quite. As long as multiple programs use the same lib version, you only install it once just as with RPM or DEB. but if another program needs a older or newer version you can install that version in parallel without it disturbing the rest.
- nkuttler 10y ago
  If you can't distribute individual directories/packages as stand-alone apps this entire exercise seems pointless, it just becomes a fancy filesystem hierarchy.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    Ah ok, now i get it. You are stuck thinking devops and containers...
  - Iv 10y ago
    Wait, neither debian nor ubuntu distribute packages as stand alone app. They distribute it without their libs and add a layer of dependency management (I did not look into Gobo's but I guess it is similar though apparently more permissive) And I don't see either what prevents one to distribute an application as standalone by stuffing all the libs needed in the application directory.
    - nkuttler 10y ago
      That's my point, you don't gain anything except a different directory structure. And if you stuff everything into one directory, size.

Filligree 10y ago

Maybe because it's not ambitious enough? Nix (and NixOS) does most of the same things, and then some, achieving more of the potential benefits. If you're going to break compatibility anyway, you might as well do it in a big way. A 2x improvement isn't enough to be worth the cost. 10x might be.

Iv 10y ago
They don't break the compatibility. The old hierarchy is still there.

ufo 10y ago

I think one of the problems is that is a source-based distribution, which is a pretty niche thing nowadays.

Iv 10y ago
I am more wondering about the filesystem organization than the distribution itself.