5 ms·

The only reason this is even an issue is because Linux distros insist on clinging to dynamic linking absolutely everything, out of some outdated 90s-era assumpt

The only reason this is even an issue is because Linux distros insist on clinging to dynamic linking absolutely everything, out of some outdated 90s-era assumptions about disk conservation, and package availability. Because often in those days downloading new packages wasn't an option because you might not even have internet at home, distros just bundled every known bit of software they could think of on the CD (Remember Walnut Creek?). But it's 2018. Even cell phone 3G is fast enough to deal with Linux deps. Disks are huge outside embedded spaces where the last thing you want to do is install a zillion random Linux deps anyway. Literally every programming language on the planet has tools to manage dependencies per-project, and it's best practice to lock a known good version of any libraries for a program anyway. Which means the only remaining concern is system-level compatibility issues, which shouldn't be a problem for normal userland software anyway, and if anything should allow for and expect failure. It's not something you should be tying the entire OS release and update cycle to for your entire software ecosystem. And yet, despite years of Linus screaming "DON'T BREAK USERLAND", distros still are built, and almost have to be built, on the assumption that everything is an interdependent house of cards that could break at any time. And the disk space arguments that consumed Usenet for years on end have become meaningless anyway, because software winds up having to link to specific versions of libs anyway, so most distros have to maintain a bunch of separate version packages anyway. Like I said: no other OS has this problem to this degree. OS X, Windows, hell even FreeBSD keeps pkg/ports distinct from the core system. I have never on any of these had to wait six months or side load just to get an up-to-date version of my tools. And we all know this: why do you think every damn language has its own package manager now? Why everyone has to maintain a ~/.local/bin, and indeed: why snap/flatpack ever had to exist in the first place. tl;dr: I know damn well why it is this way, but it's dumb, and while I'm glad someone's finally fixing it, that doesn't make it any less baffling it took this many years to do so.

elcomet 8y ago
That's very interesting, thanks for the insight! Do you know any Linux distros that try to solve this issue, outside fedora here?
- pfranz 8y ago
  I'm not sure if it would address his needs, but NixOS takes a different approach. The package manager, Nix, can run in a Linux environment or even macOS. GNU Guix is another variant of it. I've played around with it and really liked it, but it's mostly been false starts when trying to do anything serious. I understand why there's a DSL, but I had trouble groking it enough to build my own stuff.
pfranz 8y ago
I know nothing about this Fedora tech (but am really curious). Windows and macOS don't mix libraries and Applications with a packaging system and Linux distros do. I've always felt like the packaging systems for each OS had very different goals and most all of the Linux distro's packaging systems had way too much overlap to warrant different tech. When you're talking about packaging systems for macOS and Windows are you talking about things like Homebrew/Chocolatey or their interface for installing applications? I just don't see other OSes handling these things any better. I've been in the camp that language-specific package managers shouldn't have to be a thing. I'm on your side in that I think it's ridiculous that package managers have belligerent towards language-specific package managers (they'll package up libraries for languages, but not change their packaging system to address the needs they were trying to fill). Like you, I maintain my own ~/.local/bin and it sucks because the next thing I want to do is message the guy next to me and say, "run this." Instead, I have to explain how to build or install everything I just did and troubleshoot any problems. But I don't see any benefits for Windows or macOS for doing this. At larger vfx and animation studios, they all have their own packaging system they've written to manage a project's tools (here's one that's been Open Sourced[1]). I've also wanted alternative approaches, like Nix, to gain popularity. [1] https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez
grumpydba 8y ago
Agreed, dynamic linking is unfit for users who: - always want the latest and greatest and can't wait for an update - use a workstation. It is arguable that you are a minority of the use cases though. For servers, small disk footprint is a huge plus. Also, most computer users are not living on the edge and chasing updates. And let's not forget the speed of patching...
mattdm 8y ago
Former sysadmin here: conserving disk space was never a major concern. The issue is with security updates. There was one nightmare period where every single program in existence seemed to have a bundled copy of zlib, each with a slightly different version of the same gaping security vulnerability. Things like disk (and network and RAM) savings are really the icing on that cake. It was also the case that each bit of free / open source software had its own ideas of a good user experience. The distro building all all the software allowed the application of consistent policies. As a user, this was a huge step forward. But that said, yes, things have changed and distros need to too.

elcomet 8y ago

That's very interesting, thanks for the insight! Do you know any Linux distros that try to solve this issue, outside fedora here?

pfranz 8y ago
I'm not sure if it would address his needs, but NixOS takes a different approach. The package manager, Nix, can run in a Linux environment or even macOS. GNU Guix is another variant of it. I've played around with it and really liked it, but it's mostly been false starts when trying to do anything serious. I understand why there's a DSL, but I had trouble groking it enough to build my own stuff.

pfranz 8y ago

I know nothing about this Fedora tech (but am really curious). Windows and macOS don't mix libraries and Applications with a packaging system and Linux distros do. I've always felt like the packaging systems for each OS had very different goals and most all of the Linux distro's packaging systems had way too much overlap to warrant different tech. When you're talking about packaging systems for macOS and Windows are you talking about things like Homebrew/Chocolatey or their interface for installing applications? I just don't see other OSes handling these things any better. I've been in the camp that language-specific package managers shouldn't have to be a thing. I'm on your side in that I think it's ridiculous that package managers have belligerent towards language-specific package managers (they'll package up libraries for languages, but not change their packaging system to address the needs they were trying to fill). Like you, I maintain my own ~/.local/bin and it sucks because the next thing I want to do is message the guy next to me and say, "run this." Instead, I have to explain how to build or install everything I just did and troubleshoot any problems. But I don't see any benefits for Windows or macOS for doing this. At larger vfx and animation studios, they all have their own packaging system they've written to manage a project's tools (here's one that's been Open Sourced[1]). I've also wanted alternative approaches, like Nix, to gain popularity. [1] https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez https://github.com/nerdvegas/rez

grumpydba 8y ago

Agreed, dynamic linking is unfit for users who: - always want the latest and greatest and can't wait for an update - use a workstation. It is arguable that you are a minority of the use cases though. For servers, small disk footprint is a huge plus. Also, most computer users are not living on the edge and chasing updates. And let's not forget the speed of patching...

mattdm 8y ago

Former sysadmin here: conserving disk space was never a major concern. The issue is with security updates. There was one nightmare period where every single program in existence seemed to have a bundled copy of zlib, each with a slightly different version of the same gaping security vulnerability. Things like disk (and network and RAM) savings are really the icing on that cake. It was also the case that each bit of free / open source software had its own ideas of a good user experience. The distro building all all the software allowed the application of consistent policies. As a user, this was a huge step forward. But that said, yes, things have changed and distros need to too.