4 ms·

> Browser extensions remind us what it’s like to have deep control over how we use our computers. Uh. Linux users would like a word here. But more generally,

> Browser extensions remind us what it’s like to have deep control over how we use our computers. Uh. Linux users would like a word here. But more generally, there's a significant component of this that seems isomorphous to the question I was trying to discuss in a post I wrote several years ago called "Is Open Source a diversion from what users really want?" There seems to be much more excitement about ways to "hack" software that do not involve build systems than the complete, open-ended and (theoretically) unbounded access provided by FLOSS. It's not hard to see some obvious reasons why that would be true, but still a little disappointing. I tried to discuss that here, specifically in the contrast between Reaper's provision of scripting-but-closed-source versus Ardour's scripting-but-open-source. https://discourse.ardour.org/t/is-open-source-a-diversion-from-what-users-really-want/102665 https://discourse.ardour.org/t/is-open-source-a-diversion-fr...

Retr0id 3y ago
> Uh. Linux users would like a word here. As a Linux user, I disagree. It's not quite the same. Yes, I could recompile my kernel if I wanted to. I can recompile most of userspace too. But it's a hassle, especially if you want to diverge from upstream, and maintain that divergence on a long-term basis. You can do some fun hacks with LD_PRELOAD et al, but it's nowhere near the degree of flexibility and ease of access of browser extensions. I am allowed to modify all the software as I see fit (and that's excellent), but the friction of actually doing so is (comparatively) high.
- capitainenemo 3y ago
  I feel gentoo reduces that hassle a fair amount since you can just toss the patches in and the distro pulls them in on updates. So long as you're not messing with APIs it's not too bad in terms of bitrot. ... I suppose you could do the same thing with debian too. You'd just need to maintain an overlay repo that rebuilds off the upstream deb sources for the packages you touched. At that point you're pretty much doing the same thing distro's volunteer maintainer is doing. Take an upstream package, add tweaks, rebuild them automatically with tweaks on the next upstream release.
  - Retr0id 3y ago
    I should maybe give Gentoo a second try. I last tried it on a dual-core thinkpad and it was a pretty miserable experience due to the long compile times. These days I have fast computers, and I hear Gentoo even started shipping binaries recently. I have a huge amount of respect for the work distro maintainers do. It's not especially fun or glamorous work, and many are unaware that it even happens, but it's essential.
  - dvdkon 3y ago
    It's similar with NixOS, patching a package is just adding a few lines in a persistent (and generally short) config file. You "only" pay for that patch by having to update it for newer versions and by compile time. The developer experience isn't as good as browser extensions yet, though. Iterating on a patch means downloading that package to a local directory and building it there, which won't be enough for, say, patches to system libraries. You have to actually apply the system configuration for that, which means recompiling.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  You raise an important issue around persistence of state. The question isn't whether you need to recompile source, change config files, download application plugins or set-up a bunch of check-boxes in a nice GUI. It's whether you can trust those settings to stick. I've lost count of people telling me that phone settings I suggested simply "reverted" or somehow turned themselves back on/off. Even some Linux distros that use Snap alongside auto-updates etc are really quite sneaky. But to my mind web browsers (and I include all of them, Chrome, Firefox or whatever) are utterly treacherous. Any careful security stance requires constantly checking and re-checking that policies are still in effect.
- redder23 3y ago
  What has compiling the kernel to do with it, its about the fact that Linux let you control ever single aspect of your OS and tweak it to your liking. Its a pretty good example of what shows you how it is to control your PC, more so then browser extensions. Just look at what a pain in the ass it is to remove Edge from windows, even now the EU has mandated it, its still a 10+ step guide that requires some tool from Github ... and b4 that you could not even to that. Your start menu in win11 is polluted with "news" and Bing AI crap ... with no simple way to just disable it. If you use Linux you are in control and there are no annoyances and almost no proprietary code from the very start. You have endless different Desktop Endorsements ... Linux offer way more control over the OS then any browser extensions do. Firefox killed the system where you could more modify the look of the Browser, I do not mind, but I am still making this point when we talk about feeling in control. You make no sense.
  - asadotzler 3y ago
    Firefox is every bit as open source as Linux. You can control every aspect of it and tweak it to your liking and you are not limited to extensions.
- blibble 3y ago
  it's very easy with debian to maintain small patches on top of packages and dpkg-buildpackage will do all the hard work for you
yoav 3y ago
I think people see extensions as a way to bypass code signing, distribution, and brand building. So chrome (or whatever) becomes a platform for distributing and executing software.
lmm 3y ago
> Uh. Linux users would like a word here. The shift of Linux to systemd was a very similar experience to the decline of browser extensions. Yes, you can change how your computer works. But unless you're willing to put a lot of effort into maintaining those changes, the APIs you use will be cut out from under you and it'll be harder and harder to make your computer do what you wanted rather than what someone else thought it should do.
- BenjiWiebe 3y ago
  Just my own experience, but I've actually had more fun and more success using systemd to do funny stuff with my PC than with sysvinit. Can't speak to the other init systems though.
  - lmm 3y ago
    I've just reached the learned helplessness point where it feels like it's not worth learning anything because it's going to change again by the time I use it. Right now I've got a service that starts every boot that I stop manually each time because I can't figure out how to disable it; even if older init was "worse", it was "just" a shell script so I could do stuff like commenting out lines without having to go into the details.
  - account42 3y ago
    I think your response kind of misses the point. It's not that you can't do things with systemD, it's that your previous hacks suddenly no longer work. The same will be true for your system-d stuff once redhad decides that they want something else.

Retr0id 3y ago

> Uh. Linux users would like a word here. As a Linux user, I disagree. It's not quite the same. Yes, I could recompile my kernel if I wanted to. I can recompile most of userspace too. But it's a hassle, especially if you want to diverge from upstream, and maintain that divergence on a long-term basis. You can do some fun hacks with LD_PRELOAD et al, but it's nowhere near the degree of flexibility and ease of access of browser extensions. I am allowed to modify all the software as I see fit (and that's excellent), but the friction of actually doing so is (comparatively) high.

capitainenemo 3y ago
I feel gentoo reduces that hassle a fair amount since you can just toss the patches in and the distro pulls them in on updates. So long as you're not messing with APIs it's not too bad in terms of bitrot. ... I suppose you could do the same thing with debian too. You'd just need to maintain an overlay repo that rebuilds off the upstream deb sources for the packages you touched. At that point you're pretty much doing the same thing distro's volunteer maintainer is doing. Take an upstream package, add tweaks, rebuild them automatically with tweaks on the next upstream release.
- Retr0id 3y ago
  I should maybe give Gentoo a second try. I last tried it on a dual-core thinkpad and it was a pretty miserable experience due to the long compile times. These days I have fast computers, and I hear Gentoo even started shipping binaries recently. I have a huge amount of respect for the work distro maintainers do. It's not especially fun or glamorous work, and many are unaware that it even happens, but it's essential.
- dvdkon 3y ago
  It's similar with NixOS, patching a package is just adding a few lines in a persistent (and generally short) config file. You "only" pay for that patch by having to update it for newer versions and by compile time. The developer experience isn't as good as browser extensions yet, though. Iterating on a patch means downloading that package to a local directory and building it there, which won't be enough for, say, patches to system libraries. You have to actually apply the system configuration for that, which means recompiling.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
You raise an important issue around persistence of state. The question isn't whether you need to recompile source, change config files, download application plugins or set-up a bunch of check-boxes in a nice GUI. It's whether you can trust those settings to stick. I've lost count of people telling me that phone settings I suggested simply "reverted" or somehow turned themselves back on/off. Even some Linux distros that use Snap alongside auto-updates etc are really quite sneaky. But to my mind web browsers (and I include all of them, Chrome, Firefox or whatever) are utterly treacherous. Any careful security stance requires constantly checking and re-checking that policies are still in effect.
redder23 3y ago
What has compiling the kernel to do with it, its about the fact that Linux let you control ever single aspect of your OS and tweak it to your liking. Its a pretty good example of what shows you how it is to control your PC, more so then browser extensions. Just look at what a pain in the ass it is to remove Edge from windows, even now the EU has mandated it, its still a 10+ step guide that requires some tool from Github ... and b4 that you could not even to that. Your start menu in win11 is polluted with "news" and Bing AI crap ... with no simple way to just disable it. If you use Linux you are in control and there are no annoyances and almost no proprietary code from the very start. You have endless different Desktop Endorsements ... Linux offer way more control over the OS then any browser extensions do. Firefox killed the system where you could more modify the look of the Browser, I do not mind, but I am still making this point when we talk about feeling in control. You make no sense.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  Firefox is every bit as open source as Linux. You can control every aspect of it and tweak it to your liking and you are not limited to extensions.
blibble 3y ago
it's very easy with debian to maintain small patches on top of packages and dpkg-buildpackage will do all the hard work for you

yoav 3y ago

I think people see extensions as a way to bypass code signing, distribution, and brand building. So chrome (or whatever) becomes a platform for distributing and executing software.

lmm 3y ago

> Uh. Linux users would like a word here. The shift of Linux to systemd was a very similar experience to the decline of browser extensions. Yes, you can change how your computer works. But unless you're willing to put a lot of effort into maintaining those changes, the APIs you use will be cut out from under you and it'll be harder and harder to make your computer do what you wanted rather than what someone else thought it should do.

BenjiWiebe 3y ago
Just my own experience, but I've actually had more fun and more success using systemd to do funny stuff with my PC than with sysvinit. Can't speak to the other init systems though.
- lmm 3y ago
  I've just reached the learned helplessness point where it feels like it's not worth learning anything because it's going to change again by the time I use it. Right now I've got a service that starts every boot that I stop manually each time because I can't figure out how to disable it; even if older init was "worse", it was "just" a shell script so I could do stuff like commenting out lines without having to go into the details.
- account42 3y ago
  I think your response kind of misses the point. It's not that you can't do things with systemD, it's that your previous hacks suddenly no longer work. The same will be true for your system-d stuff once redhad decides that they want something else.