3 ms·

> I've watched that Q&A before. Linus is of course right but not because of package managers and not because of distribution maintainers. He eventually starts t

> I've watched that Q&A before. Linus is of course right but not because of package managers and not because of distribution maintainers. He eventually starts talking about binary interfaces which are the root cause of this issue. An issue exacerbated by the package managers and repo model. Developers think "why should I bother with binary compatibility when package maintainers are just going to recompile everything anyway?". > If all software had stable ABIs, you wouldn't even need packages at all. You'd be able to just compile stuff and distribute that binary directly. Gee, it's almost like other Desktop OSs did that. > Sure thing. I don't really care at all about what "potential" users want. I'm a programmer and I want a system suitable for programmers. "Normal" people are more than welcome to keep using whatever it is they're still using. If they don't see the value I'm not gonna convince them. That's fair, I'm just tired of dealing with evangelists. There are reasons people use other OSs and it isn't because they're stupid or uninformed or whatever nonsense people use to feel superior. In my case, it's because I don't like the way Linux does things. > With Linux I get to trust that if something's made it into the package repositories then it's trusted by the community. That also means maintainers fix idiotic "features" like old and insecure bundled libraries in the case of dynamically linked distributions, telemetry in the case of a privacy-focused distribution or non-free code in the case of Debian. They also fix idiot features like actually-working cryptography (Debian), or a "you're using a horrifically out of date version" notification from the developer (also Debian). Oh, and of course the whole model really can't handle simple tasks like: - Installing software to different disks - Installing more than one version of the software (unless explicitly packaged separately) - Choosing to have a mix of old and stable versions of some software and the latest hotness of other software These are all things that are trivial in other operating systems, but I need to use something like AppImage to get them in Linux software. Sadly not a lot of software is distributed that way because the culture of Linux is that everything must flow through a walled garden repo for your own good, and if you don't like then compile from source.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
> Developers think "why should I bother with binary compatibility when package maintainers are just going to recompile everything anyway?". Because it's good engineering. > Gee, it's almost like other Desktop OSs did that. They don't. Every now and then Apple breaks mac applications like they're nothing. Microsoft used to care about this to an almost heroic extent but that's history. I literally can't play some old games on Windows 10 without troubleshooting stupid DirectX DLL errors. Ironically that game just worked on Linux. > That's fair, I'm just tired of dealing with evangelists. Wait, so anyone who's happy with Linux is an "evangelist" now? Why even start this conversation if you don't actually want anyone to reply?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Windows compatibility isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than Linux's. I can't even take a binary from a 2 year old version of Ubuntu and run it on the latest Ubuntu in most cases without a lot of dicking around. By contrast Windows API is so stable that Linux has better compatibility with it than it does with old versions of its own. No, not everyone who likes the Linux Desktop is an evangelist, but when I come out and say the experience sucks and the very next reply is "actually it is great" it is hard not to read that as evangelism. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but what I said was "I find this experience terrible" and what they said was "you are wrong". If they had left out the "actually" it would have read differently, but as it was it seemed like just another evangelist trying to tell me what I do and don't want in an OS. Note that "Linux" in this case refers specifically to typical userland, the kernel ABI, by contrast, is quite stable.
  - bscphil 5y ago
    > when I come out and say the experience sucks and the very next reply is "actually it is great" it is hard not to read that as evangelism. Let's review. You said that the Linux desktop experience is "awful" and provided no evidence whatsoever for your claim. The reply to you, "It's actually pretty great" at least provided a couple of points in favor of believing that the situation on the Linux desktop is good, at least for some people. From where I'm standing you're the evangelist, insisting that their own picture of how a Linux desktop should be architected is the only good way with no evidence. Claiming that the way things are currently done is garbage, with no real evidence. I think it's totally unfair for you to claim that you were just giving your opinion and then had other people walk all over you and "tell you what you do and don't want in an OS". Rather, what people in this thread have been trying to get across (I think) is that we like Linux the way it is. We think it's "pretty great". We don't want to see it change because a bunch of tech "evangelists" (if you'll pardon the expression) think static linking and AppImages are a much better way to do things. Sure at the end of the day that's "subjective" (meaning it's the result of us finding certain things valuable that not everyone else finds valuable), but, well, so are any alternative conceptions of the Linux desktop.

matheusmoreira 5y ago

> Developers think "why should I bother with binary compatibility when package maintainers are just going to recompile everything anyway?". Because it's good engineering. > Gee, it's almost like other Desktop OSs did that. They don't. Every now and then Apple breaks mac applications like they're nothing. Microsoft used to care about this to an almost heroic extent but that's history. I literally can't play some old games on Windows 10 without troubleshooting stupid DirectX DLL errors. Ironically that game just worked on Linux. > That's fair, I'm just tired of dealing with evangelists. Wait, so anyone who's happy with Linux is an "evangelist" now? Why even start this conversation if you don't actually want anyone to reply?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Windows compatibility isn't perfect, but it is a hell of a lot better than Linux's. I can't even take a binary from a 2 year old version of Ubuntu and run it on the latest Ubuntu in most cases without a lot of dicking around. By contrast Windows API is so stable that Linux has better compatibility with it than it does with old versions of its own. No, not everyone who likes the Linux Desktop is an evangelist, but when I come out and say the experience sucks and the very next reply is "actually it is great" it is hard not to read that as evangelism. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but what I said was "I find this experience terrible" and what they said was "you are wrong". If they had left out the "actually" it would have read differently, but as it was it seemed like just another evangelist trying to tell me what I do and don't want in an OS. Note that "Linux" in this case refers specifically to typical userland, the kernel ABI, by contrast, is quite stable.
- bscphil 5y ago
  > when I come out and say the experience sucks and the very next reply is "actually it is great" it is hard not to read that as evangelism. Let's review. You said that the Linux desktop experience is "awful" and provided no evidence whatsoever for your claim. The reply to you, "It's actually pretty great" at least provided a couple of points in favor of believing that the situation on the Linux desktop is good, at least for some people. From where I'm standing you're the evangelist, insisting that their own picture of how a Linux desktop should be architected is the only good way with no evidence. Claiming that the way things are currently done is garbage, with no real evidence. I think it's totally unfair for you to claim that you were just giving your opinion and then had other people walk all over you and "tell you what you do and don't want in an OS". Rather, what people in this thread have been trying to get across (I think) is that we like Linux the way it is. We think it's "pretty great". We don't want to see it change because a bunch of tech "evangelists" (if you'll pardon the expression) think static linking and AppImages are a much better way to do things. Sure at the end of the day that's "subjective" (meaning it's the result of us finding certain things valuable that not everyone else finds valuable), but, well, so are any alternative conceptions of the Linux desktop.