4 ms·

There isn't a magical different userbase Linux has to serve which has somehow bizarre needs not served by thoughtfully-designed older software, but which newer,

by wegs 6y ago

There isn't a magical different userbase Linux has to serve which has somehow bizarre needs not served by thoughtfully-designed older software, but which newer, poorly-designed software somehow meets. Yes, we need a newer web browser, but that could run on old-school Linux/Unix just fine. Aside from that, there isn't anything wrong with nineties Linux which couldn't have been brought up to modern standards with a bit more discipline. Someone decided ALSA (or OSS, it doesn't matter) was rough to deal with, so they build Pulse and JACK on top of it, rather than a modest expansion of ALSA. Someone didn't like the network layer, so they build a userspace wrapper, and someone didn't like that, so they wrapped it up in a GUI. At the end of the day: 1) Everything is slow, requiring literally more than 100x the resources it once did. 2) Everything is complex, with layers upon layers, and text files with comments "This is managed by my hack. DO NOT EDIT THIS BY HAND. I keep the exact same data elsewhere, in my own config file, since I couldn't be bothered to read what's in the line below." 3) Everything is brittle and hard-to-understand. I knew how nineties Linux booted. Today, the logic is distributed among dozens of layers, mostly because people wanted to reinvent new things, rather than polishing/improving/fixing old ones. Different apps go for the wrong layer, and tutorials point to the wrong ones too. Now Ubuntu is throwing its hands up at the mess, and building snap to hide all this under yet. another. layer. As a footnote, ALSA was just about the last time this happened right, with it replacing OSS while maintaining compatibility.

sergeykish 6y ago
Maybe you should fine community that shares your views. I don't use pulseaudio, networkmanager, desktop environment, works perfectly in Arch Linux [1]. Arch has great wiki, it is correct. System is quite transparent. I am fine with systemd but, for example, Void Linux [2] uses runit, Alpine Linux [3] uses OpenRC and is compiled statically. Arch Linux pacman serves my needs perfectly, it is quick, it shows only relevant information. AUR provides ready made PKGBUILDs. Lots of Linux distributions is its strength. It allows people with niche requirements find its home. We are far better members of societies when supporting our system than grunting. [1] https://www.archlinux.org/ https://www.archlinux.org/ [2] https://voidlinux.org/ https://voidlinux.org/ [3] https://alpinelinux.org/ https://alpinelinux.org/
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > Lots of Linux distributions is its strength. Unless you want to ship something, troubleshoot something, or figure out how something works without hours of googling.
  - sergeykish 6y ago
    Would you better not able to solve at all? Ship and troubleshoot solved by distro maintaires. Niche products solved by Flatpak and its runtimes.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      I'll stick with platforms that don't require third party volunteer maintainers just to be able to run software, thanks.
      - sergeykish 6y ago
        See, you have choice and enjoy it. So do I. What I find strange is sitting on the place one does not like. There are so many choices around.
  - account42 6y ago
    > Unless you want to ship something I have never had problems distributing binary builds for Linux. There are a number of system libraries that are backwards compatible: glibc, asound, libGL, etc. - test on the oldest you want to support and any other libs you just ship yourself. And that would not be different with only one distro either unless you only care about one release of that distro.
- wegs 6y ago
  A bit of poking suggests: 1) I'm not ready to jump installed systems to arch right now. 2) Next system I install will probably try arch. Thank you!
- account42 6y ago
umanwizard 6y ago
I think you would enjoy OpenBSD.
- wegs 6y ago
  Computers aren't things I enjoy. They're things I stomach. I think I'd use OpenBSD if I were confident that after setting it up, it worked reliably, without changes, for the next few decades, with transparent system upgrades. Part of that is working Bluetooth, power management, webcams, video conferencing, OBS, and similar. Historically, OpenBSD was behind Linux on working reliably. Debian used to do this before: 1) It fell behind on hardware support, as laptops took over desktops; and 2) Ubuntu/Fedora started putting out massive numbers of half-baked technologies, and everything building atop those. I switched to Ubuntu, without Gnome, but increasingly, things don't work without Ubuntu's UX, and snap shows a future I don't want to head down anymore. I'll look into arch linux, as someone suggested.
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    Fair enough. Webcams and power management work fine on OpenBSD (assuming there exist drivers for your hardware), but Bluetooth isn’t supported at all. What I like about it is the simplicity of everything. If you want to change your mouse sensitivity, you add a line to a particular file in /etc. If you want to autojoin a particular WiFi network, you add the SSID and password to a particular file in /etc. If you want to start a daemon on boot... you get the idea. No massive complex configuration systems with giant blobs of XML that nobody understands. Unfortunately the flip side is that things move more slowly — they won’t support Bluetooth until someone writes code that meets the system’s bar for correctness, simplicity, reliability, documentation, etc. — which might be never. But the stuff that does work is fantastic. If hardware/software support requirements tie you to more mainstream OSs, I do agree with other posters that Arch is the closest thing to what you want, but it’s still far from perfect.
    - wegs 6y ago
      On that list, I can live without Bluetooth. Do you know if: 1) Zoom works? Linux has a blob which does. 2) OBS works? This is critical. 3) How is video support with ATI/Nvidia? Will my multimonitor setup break? The other thing which scares me is the manual upgrade process. On my systems, I've done apt-get update/dist-upgrade for a quarter century now, with never an issue.
utxaa 6y ago
i agree with your point. however alsa needed a multiplexing layer, or the equivalent. whereas pulse was the answer i don't know.
- kasabali 6y ago
  > alsa needed a multiplexing layer It had dmix.
account42 6y ago
> As a footnote, ALSA was just about the last time this happened right, with it replacing OSS while maintaining compatibility. Nah, even ALSA was a needless overcomplicated mess. They should have just built on top of the super simple /dev/dsp. Instead we got new incompatible APIs wile OSS apps were left with requiring exclusive access to your sound card.

by wegs 6y ago

sergeykish 6y ago

Maybe you should fine community that shares your views. I don't use pulseaudio, networkmanager, desktop environment, works perfectly in Arch Linux [1]. Arch has great wiki, it is correct. System is quite transparent. I am fine with systemd but, for example, Void Linux [2] uses runit, Alpine Linux [3] uses OpenRC and is compiled statically. Arch Linux pacman serves my needs perfectly, it is quick, it shows only relevant information. AUR provides ready made PKGBUILDs. Lots of Linux distributions is its strength. It allows people with niche requirements find its home. We are far better members of societies when supporting our system than grunting. [1] https://www.archlinux.org/ https://www.archlinux.org/ [2] https://voidlinux.org/ https://voidlinux.org/ [3] https://alpinelinux.org/ https://alpinelinux.org/

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> Lots of Linux distributions is its strength. Unless you want to ship something, troubleshoot something, or figure out how something works without hours of googling.
- sergeykish 6y ago
  Would you better not able to solve at all? Ship and troubleshoot solved by distro maintaires. Niche products solved by Flatpak and its runtimes.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    I'll stick with platforms that don't require third party volunteer maintainers just to be able to run software, thanks.
    - sergeykish 6y ago
      See, you have choice and enjoy it. So do I. What I find strange is sitting on the place one does not like. There are so many choices around.
- account42 6y ago
  > Unless you want to ship something I have never had problems distributing binary builds for Linux. There are a number of system libraries that are backwards compatible: glibc, asound, libGL, etc. - test on the oldest you want to support and any other libs you just ship yourself. And that would not be different with only one distro either unless you only care about one release of that distro.
wegs 6y ago
A bit of poking suggests: 1) I'm not ready to jump installed systems to arch right now. 2) Next system I install will probably try arch. Thank you!
account42 6y ago

umanwizard 6y ago

I think you would enjoy OpenBSD.

wegs 6y ago
Computers aren't things I enjoy. They're things I stomach. I think I'd use OpenBSD if I were confident that after setting it up, it worked reliably, without changes, for the next few decades, with transparent system upgrades. Part of that is working Bluetooth, power management, webcams, video conferencing, OBS, and similar. Historically, OpenBSD was behind Linux on working reliably. Debian used to do this before: 1) It fell behind on hardware support, as laptops took over desktops; and 2) Ubuntu/Fedora started putting out massive numbers of half-baked technologies, and everything building atop those. I switched to Ubuntu, without Gnome, but increasingly, things don't work without Ubuntu's UX, and snap shows a future I don't want to head down anymore. I'll look into arch linux, as someone suggested.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  Fair enough. Webcams and power management work fine on OpenBSD (assuming there exist drivers for your hardware), but Bluetooth isn’t supported at all. What I like about it is the simplicity of everything. If you want to change your mouse sensitivity, you add a line to a particular file in /etc. If you want to autojoin a particular WiFi network, you add the SSID and password to a particular file in /etc. If you want to start a daemon on boot... you get the idea. No massive complex configuration systems with giant blobs of XML that nobody understands. Unfortunately the flip side is that things move more slowly — they won’t support Bluetooth until someone writes code that meets the system’s bar for correctness, simplicity, reliability, documentation, etc. — which might be never. But the stuff that does work is fantastic. If hardware/software support requirements tie you to more mainstream OSs, I do agree with other posters that Arch is the closest thing to what you want, but it’s still far from perfect.
  - wegs 6y ago
    On that list, I can live without Bluetooth. Do you know if: 1) Zoom works? Linux has a blob which does. 2) OBS works? This is critical. 3) How is video support with ATI/Nvidia? Will my multimonitor setup break? The other thing which scares me is the manual upgrade process. On my systems, I've done apt-get update/dist-upgrade for a quarter century now, with never an issue.

utxaa 6y ago

i agree with your point. however alsa needed a multiplexing layer, or the equivalent. whereas pulse was the answer i don't know.

kasabali 6y ago
> alsa needed a multiplexing layer It had dmix.

account42 6y ago

> As a footnote, ALSA was just about the last time this happened right, with it replacing OSS while maintaining compatibility. Nah, even ALSA was a needless overcomplicated mess. They should have just built on top of the super simple /dev/dsp. Instead we got new incompatible APIs wile OSS apps were left with requiring exclusive access to your sound card.