4 ms·

Software distribution in Windows and Mac comes with a lot of problems, they are simply problems that you-personally don't see as part of the class of "distribut

by amoe_ 6y ago

Software distribution in Windows and Mac comes with a lot of problems, they are simply problems that you-personally don't see as part of the class of "distribution problems". Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Linux packages have a higher bar to meet for integration quality, and also have a more difficult job to do because of the more-fragmented nature of the platform. > As a software dev, my personal experience of "professional linux distro packagers" is people literally removing random lines of code of my software until it builds I'm sorry this happened, but I can assure you that the vast majority of maintainers do not do anything like this.

fvdessen 6y ago
One specific problem I always had in Linux but never had on other systems is installing a newer version of a software than the one that is present or supported by the official package manager. It's most of the time difficult, and sometimes impossible, which is very user hostile; I, the user, should be deciding which version of the software I want to run, not the distribution.
- petepete 6y ago
  There are distributions that cater for the bleeding edge, there are distributions that focus on stability, there are plenty that fall somewhere between. But with any distro, you call install whatever you like wherever you want. You, the user, make that call. You, the user, should have the knowledge to tidy up if it goes wrong.
  - watermelon0 6y ago
    What if I want a stable distribution, but need latest versions of some software? Installing anything outside of distro repositories and Flatpak (& alternatives) is, in most cases, PITA. Tracking down missing dependencies, figuring out which libraries are compatible, downloading source for those libraries, because the system provided are outdated, etc. You can literally spend a whole day just building a somewhat simple application. I'm not a fan of binary blobs, like it's customary on macOS/Windows, but at least I can actually use an application in a minute or so, after downloading it. There is no fussing around, it just simply works.
    - ghthor 6y ago
      You should try out Arch linux or one of its derivatives. I never have any of the issue you're talking about, were almost always at the bleeding edge, and for packages that aren't, we have the AUR which is straightforward to build into your system from upstream git repositories.
      - atoav 6y ago
        Arch looks tempting but my feeling is that a lot of software built by devs who run Arch needs initial help to run on Ubuntu/Debian. The other way around works better (software built to run on the latest Debian usually runs everywhere). Maybe that observation is incorrect, please give me data points. Also this won't mean you have to run Debian (but maybe a VM with Debian in it).
        ghthor 6y ago
        If you need to run something that only runs within debian, you'll likely be able to that in a straightforward way using LXC or docker containers. I wouldn't reach for a VM unless I needed the extra layer of security offered by the VM.
    - choeger 6y ago
      > There is no fussing around, it just simply works. Because they have huge teams maintaining API and ABI stability. On any Linux distribution worth its name you can also use the software within seconds after installation. The teams are just smaller and their approach is more centralised and principled, but I never had a problem using, e.g., emacs after installing it. You need to fuss around with software from their parties. Simply because these third parties do not care enough about your Linux to make the installation work well. These same third parties also do not care much about how stuff is supposed to work under windows, they just drop their binaries and assume that the windows ABI will somehow keep working.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- UncleEntity 6y ago
  > One specific problem I always had in Linux but never had on other systems is installing a newer version of a software than the one that is present or supported by the official package manager. Because the newer version (of the lib, I presume) changes the ABI and borks all the packages that were compiled against the old version? Trying to upgrade something like Mesa from Rawhide or whatever is just going to mess up your install like nobody's business but if you just need a couple minor libs (for a specific program) I've not had any problems. For programs, I've had ones running for years after they got dropped from the distros with zero problems or that I built and installed from some random srpm I found on the interwebs. In all honesty the only 'song & dance' I have to do on a semi-regular basis is rebuild my python modules when Python gets updated on a distro upgrade.
MrScruff 6y ago
What do you mean by post-install errors?
coldtea 6y ago
>Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Mac user here, can't ever remember encountering post-install errors with Mac software in 15+ years (bugs sure, like every software has, but nothing related to incomplete installation or whatever)... >Linux packages have a higher bar to meet for integration quality Isn't it actually a lower bar? They don't have to follow the platform's look and feel and UI libs (there isn't a standard, a distro can package Gnome, GTK+ only, KDE, XFCE, even CDE and Athena stuff, plus all kinds of ad-hoc UIs). They don't have to work with the same shortcuts, use the same system for configuration, or even play well with the same window compositor... When it comes to "integration quality" in Linux it's mostly "compiles with the distro's version of libs".
qayxc 6y ago
> lease don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Sorry to say, but I have to raise my hand here. The only post-installation issues I ever had on Mac and Windows were related to drivers, not applications. Plus since like a decade or so, I rarely "install" software on Windows anyway, because all the tools I use come as a "portable" version, which is just a ZIP archive. In an Apple-like fashion, these "just work" after unpacking to an arbitrary location (e.g. a USB-stick or SD-card)... What am I doing wrong here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
jcelerier 6y ago
> Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. I don't remember the last time that happened. Not that I'd exchange my ArchLinux setup against either but you gotta be honest - installing stuff on windows and mac is a solved problem. However the number of times a Debian or Ubuntu update borked something... that I don't have enough fingers nor toes - I had at least 3 installs of debian that I fucked up enough that I couldn't recover them in the last ten years - in comparison the last time that happened for me on windows was in 98' era. Not that windows doesn't suck - I still get the occasional BSOD even on win10 while Linux kernel panics are... uncommon for me but that's just my experience).
curt15 6y ago
> Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software For most user-facing Mac software that comes with a GUI, there are no post-install. Installation simply consists of copying the application bundle into the /Applications folder.

by amoe_ 6y ago

fvdessen 6y ago

One specific problem I always had in Linux but never had on other systems is installing a newer version of a software than the one that is present or supported by the official package manager. It's most of the time difficult, and sometimes impossible, which is very user hostile; I, the user, should be deciding which version of the software I want to run, not the distribution.

petepete 6y ago
There are distributions that cater for the bleeding edge, there are distributions that focus on stability, there are plenty that fall somewhere between. But with any distro, you call install whatever you like wherever you want. You, the user, make that call. You, the user, should have the knowledge to tidy up if it goes wrong.
- watermelon0 6y ago
  What if I want a stable distribution, but need latest versions of some software? Installing anything outside of distro repositories and Flatpak (& alternatives) is, in most cases, PITA. Tracking down missing dependencies, figuring out which libraries are compatible, downloading source for those libraries, because the system provided are outdated, etc. You can literally spend a whole day just building a somewhat simple application. I'm not a fan of binary blobs, like it's customary on macOS/Windows, but at least I can actually use an application in a minute or so, after downloading it. There is no fussing around, it just simply works.
  - ghthor 6y ago
    You should try out Arch linux or one of its derivatives. I never have any of the issue you're talking about, were almost always at the bleeding edge, and for packages that aren't, we have the AUR which is straightforward to build into your system from upstream git repositories.
    - atoav 6y ago
      Arch looks tempting but my feeling is that a lot of software built by devs who run Arch needs initial help to run on Ubuntu/Debian. The other way around works better (software built to run on the latest Debian usually runs everywhere). Maybe that observation is incorrect, please give me data points. Also this won't mean you have to run Debian (but maybe a VM with Debian in it).
      - ghthor 6y ago
        If you need to run something that only runs within debian, you'll likely be able to that in a straightforward way using LXC or docker containers. I wouldn't reach for a VM unless I needed the extra layer of security offered by the VM.
  - choeger 6y ago
    > There is no fussing around, it just simply works. Because they have huge teams maintaining API and ABI stability. On any Linux distribution worth its name you can also use the software within seconds after installation. The teams are just smaller and their approach is more centralised and principled, but I never had a problem using, e.g., emacs after installing it. You need to fuss around with software from their parties. Simply because these third parties do not care enough about your Linux to make the installation work well. These same third parties also do not care much about how stuff is supposed to work under windows, they just drop their binaries and assume that the windows ABI will somehow keep working.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
UncleEntity 6y ago
> One specific problem I always had in Linux but never had on other systems is installing a newer version of a software than the one that is present or supported by the official package manager. Because the newer version (of the lib, I presume) changes the ABI and borks all the packages that were compiled against the old version? Trying to upgrade something like Mesa from Rawhide or whatever is just going to mess up your install like nobody's business but if you just need a couple minor libs (for a specific program) I've not had any problems. For programs, I've had ones running for years after they got dropped from the distros with zero problems or that I built and installed from some random srpm I found on the interwebs. In all honesty the only 'song & dance' I have to do on a semi-regular basis is rebuild my python modules when Python gets updated on a distro upgrade.

MrScruff 6y ago

What do you mean by post-install errors?

coldtea 6y ago

>Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Mac user here, can't ever remember encountering post-install errors with Mac software in 15+ years (bugs sure, like every software has, but nothing related to incomplete installation or whatever)... >Linux packages have a higher bar to meet for integration quality Isn't it actually a lower bar? They don't have to follow the platform's look and feel and UI libs (there isn't a standard, a distro can package Gnome, GTK+ only, KDE, XFCE, even CDE and Athena stuff, plus all kinds of ad-hoc UIs). They don't have to work with the same shortcuts, use the same system for configuration, or even play well with the same window compositor... When it comes to "integration quality" in Linux it's mostly "compiles with the distro's version of libs".

qayxc 6y ago

> lease don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Sorry to say, but I have to raise my hand here. The only post-installation issues I ever had on Mac and Windows were related to drivers, not applications. Plus since like a decade or so, I rarely "install" software on Windows anyway, because all the tools I use come as a "portable" version, which is just a ZIP archive. In an Apple-like fashion, these "just work" after unpacking to an arbitrary location (e.g. a USB-stick or SD-card)... What am I doing wrong here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

jcelerier 6y ago

> Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. I don't remember the last time that happened. Not that I'd exchange my ArchLinux setup against either but you gotta be honest - installing stuff on windows and mac is a solved problem. However the number of times a Debian or Ubuntu update borked something... that I don't have enough fingers nor toes - I had at least 3 installs of debian that I fucked up enough that I couldn't recover them in the last ten years - in comparison the last time that happened for me on windows was in 98' era. Not that windows doesn't suck - I still get the occasional BSOD even on win10 while Linux kernel panics are... uncommon for me but that's just my experience).

curt15 6y ago

> Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software For most user-facing Mac software that comes with a GUI, there are no post-install. Installation simply consists of copying the application bundle into the /Applications folder.