4 ms·

Wayland is an attempt to replace X11. PulseAudio is a (now decent) attempt to clean up the Linux audio space. There are attempts being made. Your comment is to

Wayland is an attempt to replace X11. PulseAudio is a (now decent) attempt to clean up the Linux audio space. There are attempts being made. Your comment is too vague to be falsifiable, though. Would you mind being more precise as to what you'd like to see changed?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
In the short version: Package management and spreading files all over the hierarchy is a really terribly inflexible way to manage applications. Applications should just be folders that contain any resources the application requires that aren't in the base system (this requires a defined and stable base system). This requires no special management software whatsoever and fits intuitively into the file management metaphor that already exists. See: Application Bundles, AppDirs, AppImage, and just about any desktop os before Windows 95. Permissions should not be oriented around protecting the system from the user. That's a concept that makes sense in multiuser servers and organization networks, not personal devices. Permissions should be oriented around protecting the user's data from misbehaving applications. Base system libraries should be stable on at least decade long timelines, barring a severe security issue that cannot be mitigated in any other way. I generally agree with Linus's opinion regarding breaking comparability. Unfortunately, a lot of the developers of the userland stuff aren't Linus. In general, the OS should not presume it knows what my workflow is. This is the problem with the difference between "easy", which requires understanding what I want, and "simple" which is making systems understandable enough that I can conform them to what I want. It is my opinion that Linux Desktop has put so much effort into being easy that it has destroyed any simplicity it once had (see common Linux Desktop evangelist argument: "normal users don't need that"). The commandline environment and toolset are ass. PowerShell implemented the same concept significantly better. Explaining my ideas for the how a GUI interface should work would take a long time and are not really relevant because they could exist as just another compositor in the current ecosystem.
- ghaff 9y ago
  >Applications should just be folders that contain any resources the application requires that aren't in the base system (this requires a defined and stable base system) You're basically describing OCI/docker/moby containers.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    No. Well, yes, to a certain extent, but they don't need all the abstraction of containers, they can just be regular old directories. DOS applications were managed this way, MacOS applications were managed this way, RiscOS, NextStep, and OSX (now confusingly renamed to MacOS again) worked this way. None of them use any containerization hackery to make it work, they just don't hardcode paths at compile time in their applications like UNIX developers do.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      No they do not hardcode paths, they just have to use some other mechanism (for example: registry) to find each other's location. MacOS doesn't really work this way either, half the apps available use installer and have their files somewhere in /Library. The time when applications were universes by themselves ended in 1990 with OLE.
  - lrem 9y ago
    Containers go a step further, tossing out most of the system above the kernel. This works, but might be too expensive for personal computing.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      Flatpak in linux uses bubblewrap (namespaces, cgroups, bindmounts, seccomp, basically the same tech behind containers), and constructs /usr based on the frameworks the application requires in its manifest. On the disk, it boils down to a single copy of each framework required. Additionally, the flatpak repository is content addressable, the constructed directory trees are hardlinks to the repository, so multiple versions or even separate frameworks will share identical files.
- saahtb 9y ago
  > I generally agree with Linus's opinion regarding breaking comparability. Linus, the guy who doesn't give a shit about breaking the ABI of drivers.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    Yeah, I also don't care for that, but I can't argue that that policy hasn't achieved its goals. The Linux kernel has more and better driver support than any other open source OS and also most closed source ones.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    The driver ABI is not a part of the compatibility promise, it is an internal API. However, the folks who break internal APIs also fix the users of these APIs -- if they are available to them. If they are not, tough luck, if you want to keep the driver to yourself, you get to keep all the broken pieces too.
- swebs 9y ago
  So basically you want Snap packages? https://docs.snapcraft.io/core/snapd https://docs.snapcraft.io/core/snapd
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    No, snaps are a completely ridiculous overengineering of the concept. They use a package manager and repositories and paclage format and, from what I can tell, some overlayfs, they don't fit in to the normal file management paradigm... Frankly, they're exactly what you'd expect from the Linux community. AppImage did it much better and even that's overengineered, but its goal is to work on all Linux distributions (without a package manager or a new infrastructure or anything) and really doesn't do much more than the bare minimum to make that happen. Naturally, the Linux Desktop community largely ignores it for making too much sense.
- liveoneggs 9y ago
  ROX Desktop attempted to do app bundles a long time ago on linux as well. Anyway you are missing one of the core problems of linux distros- they are not split between "base" or "core" OS and extra packages; they are a single monolithic thing! That is why debs and rpms install right into /usr/bin along with the core OS. There is no difference.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
    I know, I was there when ROX Desktop and ROX Filer hit the scene. Sadly, yet predictably, a concept as simple and flexible as AppDirs was completely ignored by the rest of the desktop linux community. I guess it didn't make them feel leet enough or something. I may be wrong, but WindowMaker, being based on GNUStep, which was derived from NextSTEP, might have also supported application bundles (as in the actual NextSTEP Application Bundle specification). “These days, the problem isn't how to innovate; it's how to get society to adopt the good ideas that already exist.” - Douglas Engelbart > Anyway you are missing one of the core problems of linux distros- they are not split between "base" or "core" OS and extra packages I didn't miss it, I mention right in there that having a defined base system is a requirement. Something I didn't mention is that I will not call the end product a "Linux Distribution", because it is not intended to play nice with existing Linux Desktop paradigms. It'll be like Android, a completely different OS underpinned by the linux kernel.
    - liveoneggs 9y ago
      I agree completely. Linux as it exists today seems to be dialing up the complexity to 11. I am expecting (hoping, almost) that the whole thing implodes sooner rather than later so we can start getting simple things again.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago

In the short version: Package management and spreading files all over the hierarchy is a really terribly inflexible way to manage applications. Applications should just be folders that contain any resources the application requires that aren't in the base system (this requires a defined and stable base system). This requires no special management software whatsoever and fits intuitively into the file management metaphor that already exists. See: Application Bundles, AppDirs, AppImage, and just about any desktop os before Windows 95. Permissions should not be oriented around protecting the system from the user. That's a concept that makes sense in multiuser servers and organization networks, not personal devices. Permissions should be oriented around protecting the user's data from misbehaving applications. Base system libraries should be stable on at least decade long timelines, barring a severe security issue that cannot be mitigated in any other way. I generally agree with Linus's opinion regarding breaking comparability. Unfortunately, a lot of the developers of the userland stuff aren't Linus. In general, the OS should not presume it knows what my workflow is. This is the problem with the difference between "easy", which requires understanding what I want, and "simple" which is making systems understandable enough that I can conform them to what I want. It is my opinion that Linux Desktop has put so much effort into being easy that it has destroyed any simplicity it once had (see common Linux Desktop evangelist argument: "normal users don't need that"). The commandline environment and toolset are ass. PowerShell implemented the same concept significantly better. Explaining my ideas for the how a GUI interface should work would take a long time and are not really relevant because they could exist as just another compositor in the current ecosystem.

ghaff 9y ago
>Applications should just be folders that contain any resources the application requires that aren't in the base system (this requires a defined and stable base system) You're basically describing OCI/docker/moby containers.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  No. Well, yes, to a certain extent, but they don't need all the abstraction of containers, they can just be regular old directories. DOS applications were managed this way, MacOS applications were managed this way, RiscOS, NextStep, and OSX (now confusingly renamed to MacOS again) worked this way. None of them use any containerization hackery to make it work, they just don't hardcode paths at compile time in their applications like UNIX developers do.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    No they do not hardcode paths, they just have to use some other mechanism (for example: registry) to find each other's location. MacOS doesn't really work this way either, half the apps available use installer and have their files somewhere in /Library. The time when applications were universes by themselves ended in 1990 with OLE.
- lrem 9y ago
  Containers go a step further, tossing out most of the system above the kernel. This works, but might be too expensive for personal computing.
  - vetinari 9y ago
    Flatpak in linux uses bubblewrap (namespaces, cgroups, bindmounts, seccomp, basically the same tech behind containers), and constructs /usr based on the frameworks the application requires in its manifest. On the disk, it boils down to a single copy of each framework required. Additionally, the flatpak repository is content addressable, the constructed directory trees are hardlinks to the repository, so multiple versions or even separate frameworks will share identical files.
saahtb 9y ago
> I generally agree with Linus's opinion regarding breaking comparability. Linus, the guy who doesn't give a shit about breaking the ABI of drivers.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  Yeah, I also don't care for that, but I can't argue that that policy hasn't achieved its goals. The Linux kernel has more and better driver support than any other open source OS and also most closed source ones.
- vetinari 9y ago
  The driver ABI is not a part of the compatibility promise, it is an internal API. However, the folks who break internal APIs also fix the users of these APIs -- if they are available to them. If they are not, tough luck, if you want to keep the driver to yourself, you get to keep all the broken pieces too.
swebs 9y ago
So basically you want Snap packages? https://docs.snapcraft.io/core/snapd https://docs.snapcraft.io/core/snapd
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  No, snaps are a completely ridiculous overengineering of the concept. They use a package manager and repositories and paclage format and, from what I can tell, some overlayfs, they don't fit in to the normal file management paradigm... Frankly, they're exactly what you'd expect from the Linux community. AppImage did it much better and even that's overengineered, but its goal is to work on all Linux distributions (without a package manager or a new infrastructure or anything) and really doesn't do much more than the bare minimum to make that happen. Naturally, the Linux Desktop community largely ignores it for making too much sense.
liveoneggs 9y ago
ROX Desktop attempted to do app bundles a long time ago on linux as well. Anyway you are missing one of the core problems of linux distros- they are not split between "base" or "core" OS and extra packages; they are a single monolithic thing! That is why debs and rpms install right into /usr/bin along with the core OS. There is no difference.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 9y ago
  I know, I was there when ROX Desktop and ROX Filer hit the scene. Sadly, yet predictably, a concept as simple and flexible as AppDirs was completely ignored by the rest of the desktop linux community. I guess it didn't make them feel leet enough or something. I may be wrong, but WindowMaker, being based on GNUStep, which was derived from NextSTEP, might have also supported application bundles (as in the actual NextSTEP Application Bundle specification). “These days, the problem isn't how to innovate; it's how to get society to adopt the good ideas that already exist.” - Douglas Engelbart > Anyway you are missing one of the core problems of linux distros- they are not split between "base" or "core" OS and extra packages I didn't miss it, I mention right in there that having a defined base system is a requirement. Something I didn't mention is that I will not call the end product a "Linux Distribution", because it is not intended to play nice with existing Linux Desktop paradigms. It'll be like Android, a completely different OS underpinned by the linux kernel.
  - liveoneggs 9y ago
    I agree completely. Linux as it exists today seems to be dialing up the complexity to 11. I am expecting (hoping, almost) that the whole thing implodes sooner rather than later so we can start getting simple things again.