3 ms·

> Because if you start to support Linux you actually have to support all the major distribution (Debian, Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) with their different idios

by gens 6y ago

> Because if you start to support Linux you actually have to support all the major distribution (Debian, Arch, Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) with their different idiosyncrasies, package format, libc implementations and/or version, etc. That is plain wrong. I don't know who started with that line of reasoning, but it is very wrong. The only good reason for not supporting linux are the drivers. And they will change more with time then with distro. And no, solution is not flatsnaps. If there even is a problem, the solution is much simpler.

zinekeller 6y ago
> That is plain wrong. I don't know who started with that line of reasoning, but it is very wrong. Looks at old Linux binaries not running because of glibc incompatibility or dependency version mismatch. There is a mountainful of valid complaints for Microsoft, but SXS is one of those "its the least worst but realistic solution" to dependency hell. Someone saying that they are running old Linux libraries (without recompiling or patching) are either lucky to not use dependencies (usually terminal-based programs) or plainly lying.
- gens 6y ago
  Did you ever wonder why some programs work and some don't ? Luck does not have much to do with it. I have some games that were made many versions of glibc ago, and they still work. Why is that ? (that is a rhetorical question)
  - zinekeller 6y ago
    > Did you ever wonder why some programs work and some don't ? Not really. (Also older games can also stop running on Windows. It's not really Microsoft's problem except in the XP to Vista transition where several APIs were emulated but in general games (on any platform including consoles) tend to poke everything and use APIs they shouldn't touch at all.)
- kaba0 6y ago
  But there is now an actual solution to dependency hell: nix and guix deterministic build tools. Though I agree with you that binary compatibility itself is/was not that stable on linux as it was on windows.
coldpie 6y ago
I ship binary software on Linux. I assure you, it is not wrong.
- account42 6y ago
  I also ship compiled binaries for Linux. I assure you, it's wrong.

by gens 6y ago

zinekeller 6y ago

> That is plain wrong. I don't know who started with that line of reasoning, but it is very wrong. Looks at old Linux binaries not running because of glibc incompatibility or dependency version mismatch. There is a mountainful of valid complaints for Microsoft, but SXS is one of those "its the least worst but realistic solution" to dependency hell. Someone saying that they are running old Linux libraries (without recompiling or patching) are either lucky to not use dependencies (usually terminal-based programs) or plainly lying.

gens 6y ago
Did you ever wonder why some programs work and some don't ? Luck does not have much to do with it. I have some games that were made many versions of glibc ago, and they still work. Why is that ? (that is a rhetorical question)
- zinekeller 6y ago
  > Did you ever wonder why some programs work and some don't ? Not really. (Also older games can also stop running on Windows. It's not really Microsoft's problem except in the XP to Vista transition where several APIs were emulated but in general games (on any platform including consoles) tend to poke everything and use APIs they shouldn't touch at all.)
kaba0 6y ago
But there is now an actual solution to dependency hell: nix and guix deterministic build tools. Though I agree with you that binary compatibility itself is/was not that stable on linux as it was on windows.

coldpie 6y ago

I ship binary software on Linux. I assure you, it is not wrong.

account42 6y ago
I also ship compiled binaries for Linux. I assure you, it's wrong.