6 ms·

> I dared to download and play around with the files, only to get shocked how incompetent Microsoft is in packaging. It's not "Microsoft" doing the packaging.

> I dared to download and play around with the files, only to get shocked how incompetent Microsoft is in packaging. It's not "Microsoft" doing the packaging. It could be an unpaid intern that volunteered to learn how to make Debian packages. But that's not even the point: they're Microsoft developers. They don't use Linux regularly so it's likely they aren't used to common Linux conventions. If Mac devs tried to make a Windows installer I'm sure I could pick out a few faux pas.

Shank 8y ago
> They don't use Linux regularly so it's highly likely they just aren't used to common Linux conventions. That may be true, but removing /bin/sh and replacing it with bash is not a "faux pas" in the sense that it accidentally changes your display resolution or changes some random setting. You could completely hose someone's system by trashing that file. > It could be an unpaid intern that volunteered to learn how to make Debian packages. My only comment is that Microsoft most assuredly pays their interns.
lucideer 8y ago
They're deleting the `sh` binary and symlinking it to another binary, with zero detection of what that binary was (or was pointing to) before deletion, or what the user may have configured their system to do. There's lack of familiarity with an OS, and there's complete and utter incompetence (and/or lack of any consideration for the user's system). Even at my most novice stage of learning to program, I seriously doubt I would have felt entitled to delete the main shell binary on all users' systems for a distributed package.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  I think this is an arrogant attitude. You may think you would never be stupid enough to force /bin/sh to /bin/bash, but other people who are brand new to Linux may not know that random things on the system behave differently depending on what /bin/sh points to. That's if you even know what the hell /bin/sh is, because maybe you just read some installer instructions that said that this file has to point to this other file. People make mistakes. Not everyone knows everything, especially when they are new to something. I'm sure the package author is sufficiently shamed now.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    I think you're missing my point. This is not about not knowing—I may well not have known not to force /bin/sh to /bin/bash when I was starting out—it's about not blindly going about doing things you don't know about. That is arrogance: to redirect a user's shell binary when you're a novice programmer without much knowledge about what implications that redirection will have.
    - peterwwillis 8y ago
      If they didn't understand the implications (read: unintended consequences) then they couldn't know this could cause harm. What were they supposed to do, research shells for 2 weeks? Become expert Linux packagers in two sprints? Just to make an R installer? And by the way, it isn't even that wrong. /bin/sh is the POSIX Shell Scripting standard and points to an interpreter thereof, of which /bin/bash is one. If a user pointed their system's /bin/sh at a non-POSIX-compatible shell, that's just a broken system. And scripts expecting /bin/sh to use non-POSIX semantics are broken scripts. The only problem here is you don't know if the system has bash, but any sane person should assume bash exists on a Linux system.
      - admax88q 8y ago
        > What were they supposed to do, research shells for 2 weeks? Become expert Linux packagers in two sprints? Just to make an R installer? Yes? Or don't ship an R installer if you don't know what you're doing. I don't understand why they're given a pass for shipping a broken installer just because they might be amateurs who don't know what they're doing. At the end of the day this is a giant well known software corporation that is shipping laughably broken software. If you don't know what you're doing, then you shouldn't be shipping it. I don't care if its an application, an operating system, or an installer.
        peterwwillis 8y ago
        You do realize that Canonical [Ubuntu] has bricked and destroyed Linux systems with their installers and software updates, right? Here's Ubuntu 16.04 bricking systems with patches: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/meltdown-and-spectre-patches-causing-boot-issues-for-ubuntu-16-04-computers/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/meltdown-and-... Debian's updates causing PowerPC platforms to see random crashes and data corruption: https://news.softpedia.com/news/latest-debian-stretch-kernel-update-fixes-data-corruption-bug-on-powerpc-systems-520069.shtml https://news.softpedia.com/news/latest-debian-stretch-kernel... Here's Ubuntu 17.10 bricking Lenovo, Toshiba and Acer laptops: https://itsfoss.com/ubuntu-17-10-bios-bug/ https://itsfoss.com/ubuntu-17-10-bios-bug/ There are many open source vendors which ship shitty installers. In fact, virtually every software vendor I have ever used has had a shitty installer, if they even provide one. I don't think your idealistic position on software release reflects reality.
icebraining 8y ago
It's irrelevant whether it's an unpaid intern or the CEO. If it's published under the Microsoft brand and website, it's Microsoft's work.
jessaustin 8y ago
...they're Microsoft developers. They don't use Linux regularly... Sure that is my first thought, but we're told that is a prejudice from the bad old M$ days. Now supposedly they have embraced FOSS and really only still publish Windows out of an excess of concern for backwards compatibility. Other than that they're UNIXing all day long over there... although what you say is certainly plausible.
- tom_ 8y ago
  There are a lot of people at MS.
- WalterGR 8y ago
  Now supposedly they have embraced FOSS and really only still publish Windows out of an excess of concern for backwards compatibility. Other than that they're UNIXing all day long over there... Literally no one is claiming anything resembling that.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I can assure you that Microsoft isn't very good at making installers for their own software on their own OS that don't also have a lot of strange side effects.
alexeiz 8y ago
> they're Microsoft developers. They don't use Linux regularly So I guess, if you're a Microsoft developer it's OK to be clueless about non-Microsoft technologies?
Corrado 8y ago
I don't think that the argument that they don't use the product helps the case that Microsoft cares about Linux. If they want to be successful in the Linux world they are absolutely going to have to start using it. Every. Single. Day.

Shank 8y ago

> They don't use Linux regularly so it's highly likely they just aren't used to common Linux conventions. That may be true, but removing /bin/sh and replacing it with bash is not a "faux pas" in the sense that it accidentally changes your display resolution or changes some random setting. You could completely hose someone's system by trashing that file. > It could be an unpaid intern that volunteered to learn how to make Debian packages. My only comment is that Microsoft most assuredly pays their interns.

lucideer 8y ago

They're deleting the `sh` binary and symlinking it to another binary, with zero detection of what that binary was (or was pointing to) before deletion, or what the user may have configured their system to do. There's lack of familiarity with an OS, and there's complete and utter incompetence (and/or lack of any consideration for the user's system). Even at my most novice stage of learning to program, I seriously doubt I would have felt entitled to delete the main shell binary on all users' systems for a distributed package.

peterwwillis 8y ago
I think this is an arrogant attitude. You may think you would never be stupid enough to force /bin/sh to /bin/bash, but other people who are brand new to Linux may not know that random things on the system behave differently depending on what /bin/sh points to. That's if you even know what the hell /bin/sh is, because maybe you just read some installer instructions that said that this file has to point to this other file. People make mistakes. Not everyone knows everything, especially when they are new to something. I'm sure the package author is sufficiently shamed now.
- lucideer 8y ago
  I think you're missing my point. This is not about not knowing—I may well not have known not to force /bin/sh to /bin/bash when I was starting out—it's about not blindly going about doing things you don't know about. That is arrogance: to redirect a user's shell binary when you're a novice programmer without much knowledge about what implications that redirection will have.
  - peterwwillis 8y ago
    If they didn't understand the implications (read: unintended consequences) then they couldn't know this could cause harm. What were they supposed to do, research shells for 2 weeks? Become expert Linux packagers in two sprints? Just to make an R installer? And by the way, it isn't even that wrong. /bin/sh is the POSIX Shell Scripting standard and points to an interpreter thereof, of which /bin/bash is one. If a user pointed their system's /bin/sh at a non-POSIX-compatible shell, that's just a broken system. And scripts expecting /bin/sh to use non-POSIX semantics are broken scripts. The only problem here is you don't know if the system has bash, but any sane person should assume bash exists on a Linux system.
    - admax88q 8y ago
      > What were they supposed to do, research shells for 2 weeks? Become expert Linux packagers in two sprints? Just to make an R installer? Yes? Or don't ship an R installer if you don't know what you're doing. I don't understand why they're given a pass for shipping a broken installer just because they might be amateurs who don't know what they're doing. At the end of the day this is a giant well known software corporation that is shipping laughably broken software. If you don't know what you're doing, then you shouldn't be shipping it. I don't care if its an application, an operating system, or an installer.
      - peterwwillis 8y ago
        You do realize that Canonical [Ubuntu] has bricked and destroyed Linux systems with their installers and software updates, right? Here's Ubuntu 16.04 bricking systems with patches: https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/meltdown-and-spectre-patches-causing-boot-issues-for-ubuntu-16-04-computers/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/software/meltdown-and-... Debian's updates causing PowerPC platforms to see random crashes and data corruption: https://news.softpedia.com/news/latest-debian-stretch-kernel-update-fixes-data-corruption-bug-on-powerpc-systems-520069.shtml https://news.softpedia.com/news/latest-debian-stretch-kernel... Here's Ubuntu 17.10 bricking Lenovo, Toshiba and Acer laptops: https://itsfoss.com/ubuntu-17-10-bios-bug/ https://itsfoss.com/ubuntu-17-10-bios-bug/ There are many open source vendors which ship shitty installers. In fact, virtually every software vendor I have ever used has had a shitty installer, if they even provide one. I don't think your idealistic position on software release reflects reality.

icebraining 8y ago

It's irrelevant whether it's an unpaid intern or the CEO. If it's published under the Microsoft brand and website, it's Microsoft's work.

jessaustin 8y ago

...they're Microsoft developers. They don't use Linux regularly... Sure that is my first thought, but we're told that is a prejudice from the bad old M$ days. Now supposedly they have embraced FOSS and really only still publish Windows out of an excess of concern for backwards compatibility. Other than that they're UNIXing all day long over there... although what you say is certainly plausible.

tom_ 8y ago
There are a lot of people at MS.
WalterGR 8y ago
Now supposedly they have embraced FOSS and really only still publish Windows out of an excess of concern for backwards compatibility. Other than that they're UNIXing all day long over there... Literally no one is claiming anything resembling that.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I can assure you that Microsoft isn't very good at making installers for their own software on their own OS that don't also have a lot of strange side effects.

alexeiz 8y ago

> they're Microsoft developers. They don't use Linux regularly So I guess, if you're a Microsoft developer it's OK to be clueless about non-Microsoft technologies?

Corrado 8y ago

I don't think that the argument that they don't use the product helps the case that Microsoft cares about Linux. If they want to be successful in the Linux world they are absolutely going to have to start using it. Every. Single. Day.