4 ms·

> Granted it might actually work, but not if it depended on any other hpkgs not in base Haiku or things that were in its hpkg. If applications actually were jus

> Granted it might actually work, but not if it depended on any other hpkgs not in base Haiku or things that were in its hpkg. If applications actually were just files (or even folders), then this would work as expected. But it would also mean the LibreOffice package would be 300-400MB instead of 100MB; etc. etc. We chose the dependency-solving model precisely because we care to save (consecutively) terabytes of data transfer, disk space, etc. in exchange for a moderate amount of added complexity. Re-packaging applications is not so difficult for the users who really need that. Most seem not to. > And therefore irrelevant, yes, I get it. Two comments ago, you agreed that use-cases in the long-tail were rightfully not optimized for or prioritized in the default install. Nowhere did I say (and I indeed said the opposite) that this meant they were "irrelevant." Do you now disagree with this? > My point is it shouldn't matter that my usecase is in the minority, because my path towards such simple functionality [0] So you are saying that all "simple" usecases, in the "minority" or not, should be implemented? I think you might be surprised at just how many there are. Then how we prioritize all of those? So I don't see why any use-case, simple or not, should get any priority besides the number of users that want or need it multiplied by how crucial the activity is for them. Especially given how starved for time we are at present. > a problem so desperately in need of solving that Electron, which bundles an entire web browser with every application, is popular and widely used. Considering that Qt has facilities to bundle applications together into a single binary, as do most other cross-platform toolkits, I don't think this is the reason most people chose Electron (especially seeing as most Electron apps install quite a lot more than a single binary.)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> So you are saying that all "simple" usecases, in the "minority" or not Conveniently you left off the important part: the thing I'm trying to do is a thing that appears to be possible with the presented metaphor, so therefore should be simple, but since the metaphor is illusion it is not simple. > Considering that Qt has facilities to bundle applications together into a single binary, as do most other cross-platform toolkits, I don't think this is the reason most people chose Electron Consider that such things exist because despite every OS having a dependency manager to "solve" the problem, it is still less of a headache to just bundle dependencies!
- waddlesplash 7y ago
  > Conveniently you left off the important part: the thing I'm trying to do is a thing that appears to be possible with the presented metaphor Again, it is technically possible, we just did not put it in the GUI. So you are correct here. > so therefore should be simple, but since the metaphor is illusion it is not simple. I once again dispute your claim that the "metaphor is illusion" for all the aforementioned reasons... > Consider that such things exist because despite every OS having a dependency manager to "solve" the problem, it is still less of a headache to just bundle dependencies! Every OS? No, only Linux does. (I don't think the Windows and Mac App Stores count as "dependency managing" because, well, they don't check dependencies at all.) Obviously Haiku does not stop programmers from bundling their dependencies, they are still perfectly free to do so. But developers don't make applications for Haiku themselves for the most part (yet.)
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > I once again dispute your claim that the "metaphor is illusion" for all the aforementioned reasons... The metaphor is that the application is a file. If you look at /system/Applications/ that's what you see, right? Is the application a file? No, the file is a part of the hpkg, itself part of a dependency chain of hpkgs that are the application. > Every OS? No, only Linux does. Windows has a package manager too believe it or not, but it mostly just applies to Microsoft's own junk, .NET stuff, and C runtimes. I wouldn't be surprised if MacOS had one too, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't since it got Application Bundles right the first time when they inherited it from NeXT. > Obviously Haiku does not stop programmers from bundling their dependencies, they are still perfectly free to do so. Nothing stops Linux developers from doing it either, but culture forces mean it doesn't happen enough to rely on.
    - waddlesplash 7y ago
      > If you look at /system/Applications/ that's what you see, right? Is the application a file? No, the file is a part of the hpkg As I said in my previous comment, that really is a file. So how is this an illusion?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> So you are saying that all "simple" usecases, in the "minority" or not Conveniently you left off the important part: the thing I'm trying to do is a thing that appears to be possible with the presented metaphor, so therefore should be simple, but since the metaphor is illusion it is not simple. > Considering that Qt has facilities to bundle applications together into a single binary, as do most other cross-platform toolkits, I don't think this is the reason most people chose Electron Consider that such things exist because despite every OS having a dependency manager to "solve" the problem, it is still less of a headache to just bundle dependencies!

waddlesplash 7y ago
> Conveniently you left off the important part: the thing I'm trying to do is a thing that appears to be possible with the presented metaphor Again, it is technically possible, we just did not put it in the GUI. So you are correct here. > so therefore should be simple, but since the metaphor is illusion it is not simple. I once again dispute your claim that the "metaphor is illusion" for all the aforementioned reasons... > Consider that such things exist because despite every OS having a dependency manager to "solve" the problem, it is still less of a headache to just bundle dependencies! Every OS? No, only Linux does. (I don't think the Windows and Mac App Stores count as "dependency managing" because, well, they don't check dependencies at all.) Obviously Haiku does not stop programmers from bundling their dependencies, they are still perfectly free to do so. But developers don't make applications for Haiku themselves for the most part (yet.)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > I once again dispute your claim that the "metaphor is illusion" for all the aforementioned reasons... The metaphor is that the application is a file. If you look at /system/Applications/ that's what you see, right? Is the application a file? No, the file is a part of the hpkg, itself part of a dependency chain of hpkgs that are the application. > Every OS? No, only Linux does. Windows has a package manager too believe it or not, but it mostly just applies to Microsoft's own junk, .NET stuff, and C runtimes. I wouldn't be surprised if MacOS had one too, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it didn't since it got Application Bundles right the first time when they inherited it from NeXT. > Obviously Haiku does not stop programmers from bundling their dependencies, they are still perfectly free to do so. Nothing stops Linux developers from doing it either, but culture forces mean it doesn't happen enough to rely on.
  - waddlesplash 7y ago
    > If you look at /system/Applications/ that's what you see, right? Is the application a file? No, the file is a part of the hpkg As I said in my previous comment, that really is a file. So how is this an illusion?