12 ms·

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

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figuring out which libraries are compatible, downloading source for those libraries, because the system provided are outdated, etc.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.

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.