6 ms·

I already disagree with the first reason. Poor backwards compatibility is a good thing, it does not let tech debt to accumulate too much. AppImage and containe

I already disagree with the first reason. Poor backwards compatibility is a good thing, it does not let tech debt to accumulate too much. AppImage and containers are just for hiding that tech debt.

felixguendling 6y ago
I don't think that the main purpose of AppImage and containers is to hide technical debt. Being able to package an application 1x to run on many Linux distributions is a huge plus - notably if you don't want to waste resources supporting Ubuntu, RHEL, Gentoo, Arch, etc. by maintaing a separate package for each and every Linux package manager out there. The same is true for Docker: having a consistent environment is just very useful.
- Avamander 6y ago
  > I don't think that the main purpose of AppImage and containers is to hide technical debt. It might not be the main advertised purpose, but it's the result. Why bother updating some dependency when you can simply not? It makes sense not to, things could break.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > Why bother updating some dependency when you can simply not? [derp]
    - Avamander 6y ago
      You just repeated what I said. I answered that question.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        You're right, my bad. However, I think "things could break" is ultimately a worse evil than "it might have vulnerabilities". This seems to be the main point of disagreement.
shlant 6y ago
if you just care about having the most perfectly maintained, bug-free system then yes, poor backwards compatibility is a good thing, but if you are talking about market share and general acceptance of a system (which he is addressing in the video) then backwards compatibility is a pretty significant selling point for much of the general population.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> Poor backwards compatibility is a good thing I'm going to try and phrase this as nicely as I can: I fervently disagree and sincerely hope your opinion is shared only by the smallest minority possible. The point of computers is to be a tool for people to make their lives better. Being able to run software is better than not being able to run it. The more things a computer can do, the better. Also, AppImage is great.
- Avamander 6y ago
  > Being able to run software is better than not being able to run it. The more things a computer can do, the better. The more bugs you can encounter while using a piece of software is not a good thing. Security is increasingly important, running a lot of unmaintained software is a terrible thing for security. UI inconsistencies across software are not a good thing. I dread the day I will encounter the Linux-equivalent of MS-DOS filenames not being allowed. I hope all such software dies before. The Windows approach has a lot of downsides you probably don't notice if you're accustomed to using Windows.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > The more bugs you can encounter while using a piece of software is not a good thing. Then don't run any software, that's cleary the best solution to avoiding software bugs if you don't actually care about getting anything done. > Security is increasingly important, running a lot of unmaintained software is a terrible thing for security. I disagree. Even if a thing is known to be vulnerable, there are ways to mitigate it. Besides, evergreen software just provides more opportunities for bugs as things are constantly reworked and added. > The Windows approach has a lot of downsides you probably don't notice if you're accustomed to using Windows. I notice them, they just cause a lot less pain than not being able to use the software I want because it hasn't been curated by a third party for whatever particular distro I'm using.
    - Avamander 6y ago
      > Then don't run any software, that's cleary the best solution to avoiding software bugs if you don't actually care about getting anything done. Or that everyone should run maintained software? I don't know why you're making it so black and white. > I notice them, they just cause a lot less pain than not being able to use the software I want because it hasn't been curated by a third party for whatever particular distro I'm using. I didn't find them any less painful than software not working. I've never been so angry about a computer than when using some unmaintained Windows' software.

I already disagree with the first reason. Poor backwards compatibility is a good thing, it does not let tech debt to accumulate too much. AppImage and containers are just for hiding that tech debt.

felixguendling 6y ago

I don't think that the main purpose of AppImage and containers is to hide technical debt. Being able to package an application 1x to run on many Linux distributions is a huge plus - notably if you don't want to waste resources supporting Ubuntu, RHEL, Gentoo, Arch, etc. by maintaing a separate package for each and every Linux package manager out there. The same is true for Docker: having a consistent environment is just very useful.

Avamander 6y ago
> I don't think that the main purpose of AppImage and containers is to hide technical debt. It might not be the main advertised purpose, but it's the result. Why bother updating some dependency when you can simply not? It makes sense not to, things could break.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > Why bother updating some dependency when you can simply not? [derp]
  - Avamander 6y ago
    You just repeated what I said. I answered that question.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      You're right, my bad. However, I think "things could break" is ultimately a worse evil than "it might have vulnerabilities". This seems to be the main point of disagreement.

shlant 6y ago

if you just care about having the most perfectly maintained, bug-free system then yes, poor backwards compatibility is a good thing, but if you are talking about market share and general acceptance of a system (which he is addressing in the video) then backwards compatibility is a pretty significant selling point for much of the general population.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> Poor backwards compatibility is a good thing I'm going to try and phrase this as nicely as I can: I fervently disagree and sincerely hope your opinion is shared only by the smallest minority possible. The point of computers is to be a tool for people to make their lives better. Being able to run software is better than not being able to run it. The more things a computer can do, the better. Also, AppImage is great.

Avamander 6y ago
> Being able to run software is better than not being able to run it. The more things a computer can do, the better. The more bugs you can encounter while using a piece of software is not a good thing. Security is increasingly important, running a lot of unmaintained software is a terrible thing for security. UI inconsistencies across software are not a good thing. I dread the day I will encounter the Linux-equivalent of MS-DOS filenames not being allowed. I hope all such software dies before. The Windows approach has a lot of downsides you probably don't notice if you're accustomed to using Windows.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > The more bugs you can encounter while using a piece of software is not a good thing. Then don't run any software, that's cleary the best solution to avoiding software bugs if you don't actually care about getting anything done. > Security is increasingly important, running a lot of unmaintained software is a terrible thing for security. I disagree. Even if a thing is known to be vulnerable, there are ways to mitigate it. Besides, evergreen software just provides more opportunities for bugs as things are constantly reworked and added. > The Windows approach has a lot of downsides you probably don't notice if you're accustomed to using Windows. I notice them, they just cause a lot less pain than not being able to use the software I want because it hasn't been curated by a third party for whatever particular distro I'm using.
  - Avamander 6y ago
    > Then don't run any software, that's cleary the best solution to avoiding software bugs if you don't actually care about getting anything done. Or that everyone should run maintained software? I don't know why you're making it so black and white. > I notice them, they just cause a lot less pain than not being able to use the software I want because it hasn't been curated by a third party for whatever particular distro I'm using. I didn't find them any less painful than software not working. I've never been so angry about a computer than when using some unmaintained Windows' software.