4 ms·

> This isn't the fault of the kernel team though. It is the result of having no unified platform and library release coordination, no long term plans, nothing,

> This isn't the fault of the kernel team though. It is the result of having no unified platform and library release coordination, no long term plans, nothing, just chaos. Everybody just releases when he is in the mood for it. And since nothing is complete when released, devs further down the chain always go for the latest and greatest to get additional functionality. And to upgrade app1, you have to upgrade lib1 which triggers the updates of app2, app3, app4, lib3, etc. Sometimes you cant update a simple app without updating the whole desktop. The Linux dependency net appears nightmarish to everyone coming from Windows, where you have a reliable, stable base system which doesnt change for a decade and every app targets the same base system. Linux, the kernel, is only running that great because it has a dictator. But Linus' dictatorship ends at the kernel borders, he has little influence outside. The Linux desktop also needs a dictator to massively slow down the rate of uncoordinated changes and force-stabilize the ecosystem. I hoped that Mark Shuttleworth could be that man, but he then introduced Unity... but even with unity, Ubuntu is the only chance for the Linux desktop for having a single defined set of libs attractive and influential enough for app devs as a primary target so they can safely go with the library versions in Ubuntu, instead of constantly chasing the latest and greatest versions from the upstream.

jiggy2011 15y ago
Not sure why this was down voted so much, there is an element of truth to it. When you are dealing with different distributions that provide different versions of core libraries, different sound architectures , package managers and put things like executables and config files into different parts of the filesystem. I thought that the Linux standard base would be the way to solve this.
- onli 15y ago
  Probably because though there is an element of truth in it, it just sounds plain wrong. After two sentences i thought "he probably works for microsoft or another big corporation", not because it's flame, but because of the attitude to regard this as pure chaos (and having no big plan as bad). I even looked up the profile. There is kind of a release-plan, not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros are for. So the remark to Ubuntu is right. But it's wrong to mix library-stability with perceived frontend-issues with Unity. Ubuntu still fulfills that role for some apps. And besides that, it isn't necessarily wrong to write new programs against new libraries. They have new features and new bugfixes. I wouldn't want the ecosystem to stagnate right now. Or ever.
  - muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros are for The problem is that no app dev targets stable distros, but always goes for the latest and greatest from the upstream so distros are constantly forced to update libs and change the base system. So with a stable distro, you cant get a new version of an app, because the libs of your distro are too old, and you need to upgrade the whole distro just to be able to get that new app you want. The Linux ecosystem needs one distro (say Ubuntu) to become so influential, that app devs start to primarily target it instead of the upstream. Only then will the library space stop being a moving target for end users, and only then it will be possible to upgrade app1 without triggering an automatic update of app2, which both happen to depend on the same lib. Only then will these useless practices of "packaging" and "backporting" finally stop, and devs will be simply make packages themselves, like they do on windows or osx. Only then will users be able to install a distro once, and then be able to install new apps for 5-10 years without having to upgrade the whole distro every 6 months. > I wouldn't want the ecosystem to stagnate right now. Or ever. But with an ecosystem as unstable as the current one you wont get more than 1% of the market right now. Or ever. Normal users and especially businesses simply dont want to constantly update their systems. Force them to do that, and they simply walk away.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      The Linux ecosystem needs one distro (say Ubuntu) to become so influential, that app devs start to primarily target it instead of the upstream. Only then will the library space stop being a moving target for end users, and only then it will be possible to upgrade app1 without triggering an automatic update of app2, which both happen to depend on the same lib. Only then will these useless practices of "packaging" and "backporting" finally stop, and devs will be simply make packages themselves, like they do on windows or osx. Only then will users be able to install a distro once, and then be able to install new apps for 5-10 years without having to upgrade the whole distro every 6 months. What happens in Windows is not what you're describing; developers are simply forced to distribute their own copies of the libraries (as DLLs or statically compiled) since there is no package manager. What then happens is that there are dozens of copies of the same libraries, most of them lacking bugfixes and even security patches. The dependency system used by Linux distros may have its problems, but it surely beats ad-hoc dependency management, even if it requires backporting. Normal users and especially businesses simply dont want to constantly update their systems. Force them to do that, and they simply walk away. Right. If you use Windows, have you tried counting the number of update managers running in the background, the number of applications that ask you on launch to "verify updates", the number of times Windows Update alerts you, etc? Windows machines are constantly updating. Unlike Ubuntu, they just do it incrementally instead of once every six months (except for security patches). But that's better fixed by moving to a rolling release scheme.
reddit_clone 15y ago
>everyone coming from Windows, where you have a reliable, stable base system which doesnt change for a decade Now, you are being plain funny. Haven't you heard of 'DLL Hell' in Windows platform?. You never had 'windows update' break your software for no reason?
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  I've never had to upgrade Windows (including all installed apps) to be able to install some other random app. On Linux, having to upgrade the distro (including getting a new desktop environment force-installed) to get a new version of any random app is established practice. Example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822
  - acqq 15y ago
    If you claim that you "never had to upgrade Windows to be able to install some other random app" you probably haven't used Windows much then. There are games that need explicit version or newer of DirectX. You can't even produce from the C or C++ sources the binary application that runs on any Windows XP with the latest Visual Studio (11). Any C/C++ application built with Visual Studio 2010 won't run on Windows 2000 or XP prior to SP3. We developers try to build the applications that run on as many targets as possible, but even MSFT doesn't support us enough for that, seeing the older versions as the competition to their newest "shiny thing." Which is not funny considering millions and millions of users still running Windows XP. See the various opinions on MSFT intentionally removing the binary compatibility which already existed in their libraries here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3648209 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3648209
    - doug11235 15y ago
      > Any C/C++ application built with Visual Studio 2010 won't run on Windows 2000 or XP prior to SP3. By default you can't but you can adjust the build settings and it works fine.
    - hythloday 15y ago
iamgopal 15y ago
It is also result of lack of strong dictator in user space. Look how Linus use words like "masturbate, f*ck" a lot ( because he has earned right to protect what he has build ) while in desktop world, shuttleworth can not be that strong dictator when whole community is not with him.

jiggy2011 15y ago

Not sure why this was down voted so much, there is an element of truth to it. When you are dealing with different distributions that provide different versions of core libraries, different sound architectures , package managers and put things like executables and config files into different parts of the filesystem. I thought that the Linux standard base would be the way to solve this.

onli 15y ago
Probably because though there is an element of truth in it, it just sounds plain wrong. After two sentences i thought "he probably works for microsoft or another big corporation", not because it's flame, but because of the attitude to regard this as pure chaos (and having no big plan as bad). I even looked up the profile. There is kind of a release-plan, not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros are for. So the remark to Ubuntu is right. But it's wrong to mix library-stability with perceived frontend-issues with Unity. Ubuntu still fulfills that role for some apps. And besides that, it isn't necessarily wrong to write new programs against new libraries. They have new features and new bugfixes. I wouldn't want the ecosystem to stagnate right now. Or ever.
- muuh-gnu 15y ago
  > not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros are for The problem is that no app dev targets stable distros, but always goes for the latest and greatest from the upstream so distros are constantly forced to update libs and change the base system. So with a stable distro, you cant get a new version of an app, because the libs of your distro are too old, and you need to upgrade the whole distro just to be able to get that new app you want. The Linux ecosystem needs one distro (say Ubuntu) to become so influential, that app devs start to primarily target it instead of the upstream. Only then will the library space stop being a moving target for end users, and only then it will be possible to upgrade app1 without triggering an automatic update of app2, which both happen to depend on the same lib. Only then will these useless practices of "packaging" and "backporting" finally stop, and devs will be simply make packages themselves, like they do on windows or osx. Only then will users be able to install a distro once, and then be able to install new apps for 5-10 years without having to upgrade the whole distro every 6 months. > I wouldn't want the ecosystem to stagnate right now. Or ever. But with an ecosystem as unstable as the current one you wont get more than 1% of the market right now. Or ever. Normal users and especially businesses simply dont want to constantly update their systems. Force them to do that, and they simply walk away.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    The Linux ecosystem needs one distro (say Ubuntu) to become so influential, that app devs start to primarily target it instead of the upstream. Only then will the library space stop being a moving target for end users, and only then it will be possible to upgrade app1 without triggering an automatic update of app2, which both happen to depend on the same lib. Only then will these useless practices of "packaging" and "backporting" finally stop, and devs will be simply make packages themselves, like they do on windows or osx. Only then will users be able to install a distro once, and then be able to install new apps for 5-10 years without having to upgrade the whole distro every 6 months. What happens in Windows is not what you're describing; developers are simply forced to distribute their own copies of the libraries (as DLLs or statically compiled) since there is no package manager. What then happens is that there are dozens of copies of the same libraries, most of them lacking bugfixes and even security patches. The dependency system used by Linux distros may have its problems, but it surely beats ad-hoc dependency management, even if it requires backporting. Normal users and especially businesses simply dont want to constantly update their systems. Force them to do that, and they simply walk away. Right. If you use Windows, have you tried counting the number of update managers running in the background, the number of applications that ask you on launch to "verify updates", the number of times Windows Update alerts you, etc? Windows machines are constantly updating. Unlike Ubuntu, they just do it incrementally instead of once every six months (except for security patches). But that's better fixed by moving to a rolling release scheme.

reddit_clone 15y ago

>everyone coming from Windows, where you have a reliable, stable base system which doesnt change for a decade Now, you are being plain funny. Haven't you heard of 'DLL Hell' in Windows platform?. You never had 'windows update' break your software for no reason?

muuh-gnu 15y ago
I've never had to upgrade Windows (including all installed apps) to be able to install some other random app. On Linux, having to upgrade the distro (including getting a new desktop environment force-installed) to get a new version of any random app is established practice. Example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822
- acqq 15y ago
  If you claim that you "never had to upgrade Windows to be able to install some other random app" you probably haven't used Windows much then. There are games that need explicit version or newer of DirectX. You can't even produce from the C or C++ sources the binary application that runs on any Windows XP with the latest Visual Studio (11). Any C/C++ application built with Visual Studio 2010 won't run on Windows 2000 or XP prior to SP3. We developers try to build the applications that run on as many targets as possible, but even MSFT doesn't support us enough for that, seeing the older versions as the competition to their newest "shiny thing." Which is not funny considering millions and millions of users still running Windows XP. See the various opinions on MSFT intentionally removing the binary compatibility which already existed in their libraries here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3648209 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3648209
  - doug11235 15y ago
    > Any C/C++ application built with Visual Studio 2010 won't run on Windows 2000 or XP prior to SP3. By default you can't but you can adjust the build settings and it works fine.
  - hythloday 15y ago

iamgopal 15y ago

It is also result of lack of strong dictator in user space. Look how Linus use words like "masturbate, f*ck" a lot ( because he has earned right to protect what he has build ) while in desktop world, shuttleworth can not be that strong dictator when whole community is not with him.