7 ms·

The reason I stopped recommending Linux to "normal users" is _because_ of the concept of distributions. Coupling the updates of single apps with the updates of

• DrCatbox 15y ago
  But what is the alternative to a non-distributions based gnu linux operating system? How do you manage the 1000 packages and their libraries and dependencies? Many of them have separate runtimes which may or may not depend on the other packages runtime. How would you design an application sandbox to cover them all? What you're saying basically is that linux is failed. At least for me, since I cant see another way to distribute and manage the massive amount of packages that sit on gnu.org. I agree with you, and It is my opinion that the one who solves these problem is in for a lot of business-opportunities.
  • muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > But what is the alternative to a non-distributions based gnu linux operating system? A small core set of libraries that change _very_ slowly and arent intentionally obsoleted every few months. Think of Windows like slow, stable and supported for a decade. Distribution of apps decoupled from the distribution of the base. Never make an app update trigger a lib update. > How do you manage the 1000 packages and their libraries and dependencies? You dont do that at all. Developers to that themselves like they do on Windows and OSX. Every dev packages his own app and puts it either into the App store or distributes it himself. You manage only the libs and dont allow them to change fast or in an uncoordinated, chaotic way. > What you're saying basically is that linux is failed. From the point of a normal user, yes. For a normal user, it is not an option. Everybody I personally know who tried it, went back. The main reason for most of them was the insanity of application management. (And lack of hardware drivers and games, but thats not Linux' fault.) > since I cant see another way to distribute and manage the massive amount of packages that sit on gnu.org. Decouple libs and apps. Dont change APIs and lib versions every few months. Make the base a very reliable and slow moving target. Dont force anybody to change everything every few damn months. > It is my opinion that the one who solves these problem is in for a lot of business-opportunities. The problem is already solved, at least under Windows and OSX. Thats why Windows and OSX get all the desktop business and Linux gets none.
    • dvogel 15y ago
      > A small core set of libraries that change _very_ slowly and arent intentionally obsoleted every few months. Think of Windows like slow, stable and supported for a decade. Distribution of apps decoupled from the distribution of the base. Never make an app update trigger a lib update. This is the idea of the linux standard base. The concept was developed over a decade ago and it has failed to show real fruit. > You dont do that at all. Developers to that themselves like they do on Windows and OSX. Every dev packages his own app and puts it either into the App store or distributes it himself. You manage only the libs and dont allow them to change fast or in an uncoordinated, chaotic way. You can already do this with the package management systems. For example, each game in the humble indie bundle installs into it's own /opt directory, with it's own private copies of it's dependencies. It uses the package management system to hook into desktop menu updates, etc. As a user, it's been a nightmare for me. Half of the games don't run at all and I'm at a loss for how to fix them or get replacement libraries.
• lubutu 15y ago
  On the other hand, being able to install software so easily with package management is a huge benefit of distributions. Perhaps the solution is to create a new package management system for a desktop distribution. A system which ensures that when upgrading an application only its personal namespace (libraries etc) changes, while other applications remain untouched. Libraries are second-class citizens, almost. That way we get the benefits of packages and libraries, but each application is logically isolated from changes to any others. I very much agree with the idea of a slow-moving core, though. That's how I've tended to use Debian: a stable foundation upon which I can install less stable higher-level software (the things I actually interact with). Of course, this doesn't address the distro fragmentation problem Ingo is talking about.
  • mgkimsal 15y ago
    Couple other ideas: Optionally bundling specific versions of libs (or compiling in statically), and placing in user's home directory, setting path to look there first (maybe that's what you're saying exactly?) Stop using the same tool for updating userland apps and system core specific stuff. Same app for updating "/bin/ls" and for "audacity" is, imo, at the core of the brokenness. These are different types of apps with different areas of responsibility, but we lump them all together in one tool and process.
    • harshreality 15y ago
      They need to be lumped together into one update process. The package manager for each needs to be aware of the other so it can resolve incompatibilities and not overwrite files it shouldn't. Joe User is not going to run two different package managers to keep up with security updates. What you consider to be userland apps may be core system stuff to someone else. Package dependency graphs are not simple. Sometimes there are even loops, depending on what parameters you pass to ./configure You can use one tool and still separate different sorts of packages into different areas of responsibility. A few distros do that, or at least are capable of it. Arch has AUR. Gentoo has a bunch of 3rd party overlays.
• zalew 15y ago
  it's just Ubuntu, not all Linux. unless there are other distros with Unity and 6-month cycles I don't know of.
  • DrCatbox 15y ago
    ArchLinux suffers from the same problem. I left my cousin with ArchLinux, he liked it alot, so much that he still used it 6 months later. At that time he wanted to install a new program, well, from then on he stopped using arch. Because he had to call me to help him fix his system, issuing the pacman -S programname failed, so he did pacman -Sy followed by pacman -S programname again, and this time his entire system was about to be updated, he answered yes on all questions... and suddenly his entire desktop was differnt from what it was before. All the programs get updated! He didnt want that! This is people who think that a computer is broken if the taskbar on the desktop is accidently moved to another position by children. Of course they think they broke thier computer, and it did since their settings and gadgets on the plasma desktop stopped functioning, and some just changed. Without asking the user, just changed! That is a pure and simple WTF. Thats when I realized linux will never ever succeed on the desktop if it doesnt change fundamentally.
    • ElliotH 15y ago
      ArchLinux is a very poor distribution to leave with someone who doesn't have the knowledge to fix these problems. When you do pacman -Syu you should be looking on the front page for update news, you should be looking at the list of packages to be upgraded. It's not a distribution that will hold your hand, because there are some of us around who don't want our hands held.
      • freshhawk 15y ago
        The idea that there are interfaces for expert users (or that there should be) is anathema on HN these days.
        • ElliotH 15y ago
• sp332 15y ago
  Coupling the updates of single apps with the updates of the whole desktop or framework and libs, is just plain wrong. You don't have to do all that to upgrade a single app. In fact you're thinking of it backwards. Distros mean that when you upgrade the OS or libs, you get new versions of the apps for free. You can still configure && make && make install, or grab a statically-linked binary, or any other method of getting Linux apps to run.
  • muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > You can still configure && make && make install You aren't serious, are you? > statically-linked binary Nobody builds them. > any other method of getting Linux apps to run. There are no other methods. > Distros mean that when you upgrade the OS or libs, you get new versions of the apps for free. That in turn means that if I dont want to upgrade the OS and the libs, I cant get new app versions. The collective refusal to acknowledge that this is a problem is what is holding back (aka killing) desktop Linux.
    • sp332 15y ago
      You said you stopped pointing people toward Linux because of the distros. But distros only add ways to get software. You don't have to use their package management at all. If you want to install a new version of an app, with or without the help of the distro, what better way is there to avoid dependency hell? Edit: Central-repository installation methods I've used: python easy_install, perl CPAN, Ubuntu PPAs (which are a way to add 3rd-party apps to your package manager).
      • muuh-gnu 15y ago
        > But distros only add ways to get software. Without distros, the way to get software is unbearable for Windows converts, where it is just "click, click, done." > what better way is there to avoid dependency hell? All distros agreeing to ship one specific version of a lib, so that app devs can target that "standard" version instead of daily changing upstream versions. The dependency chaos is a consequence of no distribution being influential enough (or the major players not being able to agree) to slow down the interdependent moving target that is the library space. So app devs dont care what distros ship and only target the upstream, and the upstream lib devs dont care about the overall ecosystem and just ship whenever they feel like shipping. Nobody of them seems to care about the user experience of the end user, for whom getting on Linux seems like building on a shaky ground. And then they both pretend to not understand that a majority of end users would rather pay for Windows and have a decade of peace of mind and hassle free app availability, than moving for free to a earthquake prone area.
• moe 15y ago
  I agree with your complaints but I don't see how it is related to the concept of distributions. Having multiple distributions is fine; someone just needs to make one with a package manager that gets this stuff right. Then your parents can just use that one distribution and never need to care about what other distros do. In fact, Ubuntu wants to be that one distribution that is easy for normals. But as you illustrated, it still falls short...
  • muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > I don't see how it is related to the concept of distributions. Distributions freeze the set of available app versions to a specific version of the base system. You cant get a new app without upgrading everything else too, including all other apps. I cant simply get a new Emacs on my Ubuntu, because to do that, Ubuntu also wants to remove my Gnome2 and replace it with Unity. Windows decouples the base from the apps. When you want to update an app, you just do it, everything else remains untouched. If I want to get a new Emacs on XP, it wont force me to simultaneously upgrade to 7. Windows would have the same problems if they bundled a new set of base libs and 20000 apps that only work with that specific set of libs every few months but they dont. They invest a great effort into making the base system slow and stable and support it for a decade or more, and it shows.
    • moe 15y ago
      As I said. That's a problem with the package management in most distributions. It has nothing to do with the fact that we have multiple distributions. I.e. source-based distributions (e.g. gentoo) don't have this particular problem.
      • adambyrtek 15y ago
        Tell this to people who ended up with broken Arch installations after the sudden upgrade to Python 3.x.
        • Drbble 15y ago
• morsch 15y ago
  Eh. First of all, you're not limited to the packages your distribution supplies. Lots and lots of software is distributed in Launchpad PPAs. Other stuff can be installed without the package manager, some games are statically compiled, etc. And I don't see what's wrong with requiring users to have an up-to-date system. Security fixes alone make regular updates almost mandatory on all operating systems. Windows installs run for a decade, but they still get constant security upgrades, including ones that require restarts and big scary service packs. System upgrades simply should be totally painless. The kernel gets updated constantly without users noticing, it should be the same for all upgrades. Maybe a rolling release would be a better solution, because it gets rid of the scary system upgrade user interaction, but they're more difficult to QA. Maybe the repository administration model needs to be changed. Giving the devs more control/responsibility for their package in the repository might be a good idea. Many developers already set up PPAs to get there.
  • muuh-gnu 15y ago
    > And I don't see what's wrong with requiring users to have an up-to-date system. The problem are not the forced invisible security updates, the problem are forced user-visible upgrades. When you want to upgrade one app, you maybe dont want to simultaneously upgrade another app or even the whole desktop. With the distribution model, theres no way to avoid this forced interdependence.
    • harshreality 15y ago
      Updates are not invisible by default because the organizations behind the distros can't provide the same level of assurance that Microsoft or Apple can that update X won't break something. Average users should have no say in keeping their apps from getting auto upgraded. Linux distros have to track upstream app releases because if they don't there will be breakage eventually. Some app will require a feature added in lib X version Y, and they're still on Y-2. If the packages aren't upgraded, users will complain when they can't install newer packages.
      • Drbble 15y ago
• Game_Ender 15y ago
  From my perspective I don't have any trouble with Ubuntu using a combination of PPAs and Win/OSX like self contained apps. Things like Chrome and Mendeley come with auto-updating PPAs. Other apps that I really care about like Eclipse, Matlab or Firefox come in there own self contained packages.
• basman 15y ago
  > He basically wanted to upgrade just one (obscure) app, and the process triggered the automatic removal of Gnome2 and installation of Unity. Just _IMAGINE_ how nightmarish this must look for normal users. You simply dont remove somebodys installed desktop sneakily from under their feet. You simply dont. That feels like the total loss of control over your computer. Hmm, that's not exactly what happened, according to the link: "I upgraded to Ubuntu 11.04 a week or so back in order to get a more recent version of SCons." Your overall point is well taken, but I wonder how much it affects what I think of as "normal users", who don't care so much about upgrading to the bleeding edge of scons. Consider a hypothetical user of Hardy, so they've had it for four years: what are they actually missing if what they do is web surfing, email, and maybe document editing?
  • durin42 15y ago
    Let's say they use instant messenger services, so they have Pidgin installed. I'm pretty sure there have been critical bugfixes in Pidgin, and the old Hardy version of Pidgin was so flaky for me 2 years ago (back before my workplace had moved to Lucid) that I installed my own from source. Ubuntu's answer to that? Well, those aren't security fixes, so you can upgrade to $LATEST_RELEASE if you want the non-critical fixes. Ubuntu is trying to force a 2+ year bugfix cycle on software maintainers, and that's just not realistic for many small teams (both proprietary and open source). This is a particular example, but I can think of other cases where this might be a problem. OpenOffice updates after a new MS Office release come to mind offhand.
• acabal 15y ago
  I've been saying this same thing for years. Package managers are a nice concept in theory, but Linux on the desktop will never, ever succeed until upgrading (for example) Firefox doesn't result in an install of Unity. The entire concept of a milestone-based monolithic distro is so broken for desktop use that I can't believe a better alternative hasn't been developed yet. Even as a Linux nerd I'm constantly faced with problems caused by this. I'm stuck on Ubuntu Natty, for example, because it has the last stable version of Compiz that worked for me on the flgrx ATI drivers. If I wanted the latest version of Unity (I don't, I think Unity is terrible, but this is just an example) that means I'd have to upgrade Compiz and everything else and get stuck with all the horrible bugs new Compiz versions have with my drivers. It would also mean upgrading to Gnome 3 which still has many usability regressions (unrelated to Gnome Shell) and in my opinion isn't fully baked yet. I don't want all that shit just to get the latest version of a single package! (You could perhaps pull it off with some PPA mumbo-jumbo, but you'd have to understand what a PPA is, luck out in finding a PPA in the first place, and messing with them can more than likely bork something up. Not something for the average-Joe audience Ubuntu is targeting.) Shared libraries made sense in the days of limited space and resources. They still make sense from a few security perspectives. But from a practical perspective, Windows did it right by allowing programs to ship their own libraries and by doing backwards-compatibility right.
  • luser001 15y ago
    I understand where you're coming from, but people have the exact same problem with Windows (and maybe Mac also; but I don't have much experience with Macs). Many people are staying on XP because they dislike Windows 7/Vista. I suspect the same is happening with Ubuntu. I personally LOVE LOVE LOVE that all my apps are updated by the same program. Instead of the Windows/Mac way of each app running it's own updater. However, I do agree that the UI for upgrading a single app should be made better. Just this week, I finally moved out of Unity while staying with Ubuntu 11.10. My workaround is to move to XFCE (Xubuntu). So far, no problems. Btw, I have Compiz enabled with the proprietary nvidia drivers. You might want to try Xubuntu. It's amazing how easy it was to take out Unity and replace it with xubuntu: sudo apt-get install xubuntu-desktop. The xubuntu people have taken the trouble to interface with all the Ubuntu plumbing (networking, sound, updates etc) via XFCE. Overall I'm impressed with the Ubuntu ecosystem.
• cageface 15y ago
  These kinds of package distribution schemes work well for clusters of homogenous servers but I agree that they just get in the way for a typical desktop user.
• cgoddard 15y ago
  For software updates without updating the distro, backports can be turned on. The reason that everything is packaged together like that is so library updates and other things can be tested and vetted for compatibility. Part of the challenge of allowing such a variety of OS and system configurations is that library or software package maintainers are unlikely to have tested their updated code on every possible distribution out there, and so that makes it the responsibility of the distro maintainers. Believe it or not in practice this doesn't create many issues. It might be an obstacle for casual users who are trying to transition into power users, and are trying to tweak their system. But most other users aren't encountering the same frustration.
• rbanffy 15y ago
  > He basically wanted to upgrade just one (obscure) app No. He wanted a new version of the app and upgraded to a new version of the OS (with a new set of default packages). And he got surprised by getting a new GUI, something which is rather odd because Unity was one of the most publicized features of Ubuntu. > the process triggered the automatic removal of Gnome2 and installation of Unity Not really. Gnome2 would still be there. Just the default UI is Unity. I'm more than a little bit surprised ESR had trouble remembering you switch UIs on login. I've been doing it since my Solaris (2.5) days. I loved OpenWindows. > having to upgrade the whole distribution every few months just to be able to get new app versions That's not really true - you have to do so because the distro publisher won't support the newest Chrome on their 2006 OS. It's ridiculous to demand them to spend their resources on your particular needs. If you are not happy, you can ask to have your money back. And even when the distro publisher doesn't want to add newer versions to an old OS, you can always add private repos maintained by the makers of your favorite software. And, remember, having stable versions of software (even when a newer, flashier version, was made public) is not what some people want. I wan't my servers stable. > This "distribution" bullshit is not what is killing desktop Linux It was never much alive. Linux is an OS that suits a couple users well, but not most of them. > are imho just consequences of the distribution concept and the 6-month planned-obsolescence cycle. It usually took much longer to get a new version of your favorite Linux distro. 6 months is the current standard. And, again, there is no planned obsolescence. There are many alternative places to get newer versions for. > Windows installations, once installed or preinstalled, run for a decade. I don't believe we met, sir. Where planet are you from? > If anybody _ever_ really wants to see Linux succeed on the desktop (...) he will have to give up on the distribution concept first. I don't think so. In fact, most people don't think so. And, let me say that not thinking so works quite well. You do realize the incredibly arrogant position you are taking. You purport to be the savior of the Linux desktop (do we need one, BTW?) and to have realized what's wrong with it and, best of all, you have the solution! Just do everything opposite to how it's been working for decades and all our problems will be solved. Let me put it simply: when you think you are the dumbest person in a room, you are probably right. When you think you are the smartest person in a room, you are most probably wrong. And if you disagree with everybody else in the room, odds are you are really the dumbest person there. Maintaining a distro is a lot of work, but until we can make software makers to agree on a single package format, a single way to manage configurations and a single way to organize the file hierarchy, the distro way will remain a very popular way to manage your computers.
• eli_gottlieb 15y ago
  It doesn't work that way. "Linux", even GNU/Linux, is not really a single operating system. It's an anarchically-designed, anarchically-run OS-building kit revolving around a vision of what an ideal operating system would look like and with each part adjusting to what each other part is doing on the fly. Evolution will never truly replicate the results possible with design.