3 ms·

I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro provides build scripts anyway. We're moving towards reproducible builds now, which have a

I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro provides build scripts anyway. We're moving towards reproducible builds now, which have a hard requirement of a 'one command' build process to reproduce byte for byte output. I think within a few years we'll see distributions that have the option to build from source in the package manager as a first class citizen. To me, that's the sane way to distribute software. Provided unverifiable binaries are sketchy. Closed source software is something other people use. Almost no software provides binary releases at the commit level. Sometimes you can have nightlies. Again, I think this is something that seperates userbases. You don't want this, you see it as effort or something. I see it as being absolutely necessary. So, YMMV I guess. /shrug

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro provides build scripts anyway. Consider the common case that the software you want to install is not in the repo. > Closed source software is something other people use. Great for you, but what's this thread about again? Oh yeah, Linux Desktop being useful for people who aren't currently using it. As in, basically everybody who uses a personal computer. Why do they use proprietary software? Because they have shit to do and they need tools. They can't always write the tools themselves so they pay someone else who has written the tool they need. This isn't rocket science, yet Linux Desktop evangelists still don't get it even after 20 years.
- esotericn 7y ago
  You're replying to my original comment that states that this is tautological. I don't think that the Linux Desktop will be successful, and I think if it ever is, that would be because it's moved away from the principles that make it interesting to people like me to begin with. I'm not talking about the man on the clapham omnibus, so responding to me along those lines is kind of silly. I don't expect the general public to spanner. I do have disdain for developers that moan about it though.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Alright, let's forget about the general public. I, as a tinkerer, developer, and general personal computing enthusiast think it is absolute unmitigated bullshit that my only options for installing software are to restrict myself to what is in some repo maintained by volunteers, or try my best to match the build environment of the developer and compile from source. I don't like useless busywork, and I don't fetishize complexity. I do like the idea of an open and free operating system, so it bothers me a lot that the only one even coming close to being useful to me is still so far off.
    - esotericn 7y ago
      I just feel like we're in different worlds. > try my best to match the build environment of the developer and compile from source This is analogous to someone releasing a Windows executable without the correct DLLs or whatever. The developer hasn't given you what you need to install it. Your problem is with the developer of that software. Again, YMMV, I reckon we just use different things. I've literally never had this problem for over ten years now.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        That makes you an outlier, considering how many developers now ship their build environment in a docker container to avoid these problems.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> I've never encountered this (compiling) as being a problem - my distro provides build scripts anyway. Consider the common case that the software you want to install is not in the repo. > Closed source software is something other people use. Great for you, but what's this thread about again? Oh yeah, Linux Desktop being useful for people who aren't currently using it. As in, basically everybody who uses a personal computer. Why do they use proprietary software? Because they have shit to do and they need tools. They can't always write the tools themselves so they pay someone else who has written the tool they need. This isn't rocket science, yet Linux Desktop evangelists still don't get it even after 20 years.

esotericn 7y ago
You're replying to my original comment that states that this is tautological. I don't think that the Linux Desktop will be successful, and I think if it ever is, that would be because it's moved away from the principles that make it interesting to people like me to begin with. I'm not talking about the man on the clapham omnibus, so responding to me along those lines is kind of silly. I don't expect the general public to spanner. I do have disdain for developers that moan about it though.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  Alright, let's forget about the general public. I, as a tinkerer, developer, and general personal computing enthusiast think it is absolute unmitigated bullshit that my only options for installing software are to restrict myself to what is in some repo maintained by volunteers, or try my best to match the build environment of the developer and compile from source. I don't like useless busywork, and I don't fetishize complexity. I do like the idea of an open and free operating system, so it bothers me a lot that the only one even coming close to being useful to me is still so far off.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    I just feel like we're in different worlds. > try my best to match the build environment of the developer and compile from source This is analogous to someone releasing a Windows executable without the correct DLLs or whatever. The developer hasn't given you what you need to install it. Your problem is with the developer of that software. Again, YMMV, I reckon we just use different things. I've literally never had this problem for over ten years now.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      That makes you an outlier, considering how many developers now ship their build environment in a docker container to avoid these problems.