3 ms·

Why not? Its cheap resource wise whereas dependency hell is potentially debilitating. For some reason many proponents of the package management status quo are b

Why not? Its cheap resource wise whereas dependency hell is potentially debilitating. For some reason many proponents of the package management status quo are blind to this. Having multiple versions of a dependency is only bad in so far as its "messy". It isn't objectively bad. But having a system that breaks applications because two or more cant agree on a package version is objectively bad. Its arguing aesthetics versus getting the job done. A poor position. Windows, for all its faults, doesn't have this problem. It will happily accommodate multiple versions of say, .Net as needed.

kijin 5y ago
Disk is cheap. RAM is cheap. Man-hours are not. Distros are maintained by people, who are often volunteers. You are asking them to do extra work (i.e. porting the same patch to multiple versions of the same library) so that someone else can have it easy. But why should they? Why not the other way around? It's not just aesthetics. If a new vulnerability is found in, say, libjpeg, then every Windows app that uses libjpeg needs to be updated separately. Tough luck if your favorite image manipulation tool takes a while to catch up. On the Linux side of the fence, the distro patches libjpeg and every app is automatically fixed. This is a huge win in terms of protecting the user. Why should we give up that benefit just because some developer wants to use his own special snowflake version of a library?
- thereddaikon 5y ago
  Not managing that would require less work not more. Their position is making more work for themselves. The point was to prevent dependency hell through matching the wrong package versions. Something that can occasionally happen in Windows. The problem is, the current form of management causes the far worse form of dependency hell of applications requiring conflicting versions. I have maybe had Windows get confused about dependency versions twice ever and both times it was a driver inf for a virtual device. I will grant that fixing the problem required a fair amount of work by Windows standards but frankly not all that much by the standards of some of the more hands on distros. I have had Linux tell me I can't install an application because it wanted a different version of Lib-whatever than what something else wants many many times. "Why should we give up that benefit just because some developer wants to use his own special snowflake version of a library?" Odd that you claim major distros are built by a small group of volunteers but the maintainers of much smaller and less well supported applications need to suck it up and use whatever version the Distro maintainers decide on. Most major distros are not volunteer run and haven't been for ages. Ubuntu, RHEL, SUSE, POP, the list goes on. These are commercial products with full time paid developers. In the case of Ubuntu they are providing a major chunk of the work back upstream to Debian and in the case of RHEL they are the upstream. Most minor distros are downstream benefactors of the big players. Contrary to that its still common for many FOSS apps and utilities to be one man jobs. Maybe the guy doesn't have the resources to keep up with the break neck pace of some update cycles. What if they decided to go with an LTS build intentionally? What if its a simple package that doesn't have security issues yet gets updated for other reasons? What if the version they are using has core functionality that was EOL'd in a newer release so they can't move on without major rework that they can't manage? There are a million reasons for why a project may want to stick with an older version. Also allowing for the ability to update all packages does not require draconian control of which packages can be installed. This notion runs against the whole notion of user control. If the user wants multiple concurrent versions on their system who are you to say they can't? FOSS means freedom.

kijin 5y ago

Disk is cheap. RAM is cheap. Man-hours are not. Distros are maintained by people, who are often volunteers. You are asking them to do extra work (i.e. porting the same patch to multiple versions of the same library) so that someone else can have it easy. But why should they? Why not the other way around? It's not just aesthetics. If a new vulnerability is found in, say, libjpeg, then every Windows app that uses libjpeg needs to be updated separately. Tough luck if your favorite image manipulation tool takes a while to catch up. On the Linux side of the fence, the distro patches libjpeg and every app is automatically fixed. This is a huge win in terms of protecting the user. Why should we give up that benefit just because some developer wants to use his own special snowflake version of a library?

thereddaikon 5y ago
Not managing that would require less work not more. Their position is making more work for themselves. The point was to prevent dependency hell through matching the wrong package versions. Something that can occasionally happen in Windows. The problem is, the current form of management causes the far worse form of dependency hell of applications requiring conflicting versions. I have maybe had Windows get confused about dependency versions twice ever and both times it was a driver inf for a virtual device. I will grant that fixing the problem required a fair amount of work by Windows standards but frankly not all that much by the standards of some of the more hands on distros. I have had Linux tell me I can't install an application because it wanted a different version of Lib-whatever than what something else wants many many times. "Why should we give up that benefit just because some developer wants to use his own special snowflake version of a library?" Odd that you claim major distros are built by a small group of volunteers but the maintainers of much smaller and less well supported applications need to suck it up and use whatever version the Distro maintainers decide on. Most major distros are not volunteer run and haven't been for ages. Ubuntu, RHEL, SUSE, POP, the list goes on. These are commercial products with full time paid developers. In the case of Ubuntu they are providing a major chunk of the work back upstream to Debian and in the case of RHEL they are the upstream. Most minor distros are downstream benefactors of the big players. Contrary to that its still common for many FOSS apps and utilities to be one man jobs. Maybe the guy doesn't have the resources to keep up with the break neck pace of some update cycles. What if they decided to go with an LTS build intentionally? What if its a simple package that doesn't have security issues yet gets updated for other reasons? What if the version they are using has core functionality that was EOL'd in a newer release so they can't move on without major rework that they can't manage? There are a million reasons for why a project may want to stick with an older version. Also allowing for the ability to update all packages does not require draconian control of which packages can be installed. This notion runs against the whole notion of user control. If the user wants multiple concurrent versions on their system who are you to say they can't? FOSS means freedom.