4 ms·

> At some point in the past 30 years thought could have been given to the idea that applications are separate from the platform they run on, but UNIX just doesn

by cat199 7y ago

> At some point in the past 30 years thought could have been given to the idea that applications are separate from the platform they run on, but UNIX just doesn't think that way. Everything must be part of the same gigantic Goldberg-esq state so everything can catch fire and burn down at once as soon as there's a conflict of any kind. this only happens if one isnt aren't managing applications coherently (e.g binary only packages managed haphazardly, like most linux binary packagers) on systems where there is a clear base+add-ons distinction (e.g. source based ports), these things happen much less often - all packages are built from a coherent source tree, and read only root is often feasable because packages only install reference files into their respective '/usr/share' area and don't muck with the 'real system' in /etc - the latter being an administrative action (e.g. package installation is a separate action from service configuration / execution)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
So basically, all software has to be built from source by maintainers who are careful to make sure it doesn't conflict with other software. And people wonder why applications aren't ported to these OSs. The OS should be a platform. I should be able to build an application and distribute it to users and have it just run on that platform without involving third party middlemen and regardless of other software they have. You know what OSs accomplished this? The original Macintosh, RiscOS, DOS, and (mostly) Windows 3.1. Why is it that we can't accomplish today something we did 30 years ago?
- cat199 7y ago
  a platform for what? a platform for 'building your system', or a platform for 'distributing and executing binaries'? the binary only distribution mentality comes from microcomputer culture, which postdates unix/mini culture and is rooted in non-technical users installing purchased 'application' programs from vendors rather than computer users (read: programmers) building their systems to suit their own personal data processing tasks. you highlight this in your choice of platforms 'getting this right', but really, these are two different mentalities, cultures, and modes of operation. not saying one is superior to the other, but square peg, round hole. and besides: many proprietary programs for unix just ship with static executables. problem solved.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > a platform for what? > a platform for 'building your system', or a platform for 'distributing and executing binaries'? These are not mutually exclusive goals. > the binary only distribution mentality comes from microcomputer culture, which postdates unix/mini culture and is rooted in non-technical users installing purchased 'application' programs from vendors rather than computer users (read: programmers) building their systems to suit their own personal data processing tasks. "Non-technical". Elitist bullshit. Woz was non-technical? He was clearly a micro guy. People got work done with micros. They made things with micros. Like your glorious programmer master-race, they configured their environment into something that enhanced their lives. They bought and used software the way you import 10000 dependencies. Excel is still by far the most used programming environment in the world, with entire businesses run on tooling never touched by programmer-master-race hands. Besides, programmers should want it this way too. Which makes more sense to you? A constantly mutating state where changes in seemingly unrelated portions can wreck havok on the whole, or a collection of immutable components which can be swapped in and out at will? A system so complicated it needs sophisticated management software and a database of conflicts and dependencies to keep it all running, or one so simple that 'copy' and 'install', and 'delete' and 'uninstall' are synonymous? If the UNIX model is so damn great, why the fuck does Docker exist!? If development is so damn great on UNIX, why are people building and distributing dev environments in containers!? > you highlight this in your choice of platforms 'getting this right', but really, these are two different mentalities, cultures, and modes of operation. > not saying one is superior to the other, but square peg, round hole. I disagree. I think one is clearly objectively superior to the other. > many proprietary programs for unix just ship with static executables. problem solved. Ha! Yeah. Problem solved. Even for proprietary software with a native Linux version I've almost always had better luck running the Windows version under WINE.

by cat199 7y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

So basically, all software has to be built from source by maintainers who are careful to make sure it doesn't conflict with other software. And people wonder why applications aren't ported to these OSs. The OS should be a platform. I should be able to build an application and distribute it to users and have it just run on that platform without involving third party middlemen and regardless of other software they have. You know what OSs accomplished this? The original Macintosh, RiscOS, DOS, and (mostly) Windows 3.1. Why is it that we can't accomplish today something we did 30 years ago?

cat199 7y ago
a platform for what? a platform for 'building your system', or a platform for 'distributing and executing binaries'? the binary only distribution mentality comes from microcomputer culture, which postdates unix/mini culture and is rooted in non-technical users installing purchased 'application' programs from vendors rather than computer users (read: programmers) building their systems to suit their own personal data processing tasks. you highlight this in your choice of platforms 'getting this right', but really, these are two different mentalities, cultures, and modes of operation. not saying one is superior to the other, but square peg, round hole. and besides: many proprietary programs for unix just ship with static executables. problem solved.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > a platform for what? > a platform for 'building your system', or a platform for 'distributing and executing binaries'? These are not mutually exclusive goals. > the binary only distribution mentality comes from microcomputer culture, which postdates unix/mini culture and is rooted in non-technical users installing purchased 'application' programs from vendors rather than computer users (read: programmers) building their systems to suit their own personal data processing tasks. "Non-technical". Elitist bullshit. Woz was non-technical? He was clearly a micro guy. People got work done with micros. They made things with micros. Like your glorious programmer master-race, they configured their environment into something that enhanced their lives. They bought and used software the way you import 10000 dependencies. Excel is still by far the most used programming environment in the world, with entire businesses run on tooling never touched by programmer-master-race hands. Besides, programmers should want it this way too. Which makes more sense to you? A constantly mutating state where changes in seemingly unrelated portions can wreck havok on the whole, or a collection of immutable components which can be swapped in and out at will? A system so complicated it needs sophisticated management software and a database of conflicts and dependencies to keep it all running, or one so simple that 'copy' and 'install', and 'delete' and 'uninstall' are synonymous? If the UNIX model is so damn great, why the fuck does Docker exist!? If development is so damn great on UNIX, why are people building and distributing dev environments in containers!? > you highlight this in your choice of platforms 'getting this right', but really, these are two different mentalities, cultures, and modes of operation. > not saying one is superior to the other, but square peg, round hole. I disagree. I think one is clearly objectively superior to the other. > many proprietary programs for unix just ship with static executables. problem solved. Ha! Yeah. Problem solved. Even for proprietary software with a native Linux version I've almost always had better luck running the Windows version under WINE.