4 ms·

> You know how on Windows, you can just download a zip with a program in it, unzip, double click, and the thing runs? Wouldn't it be nice if we could have that

> You know how on Windows, you can just download a zip with a program in it, unzip, double click, and the thing runs? Wouldn't it be nice if we could have that on Linux? There's no technical reason we can't, just standard practices that are hostile to this goal. Oh Linux. The inability to trivially target arbitrary versions of glibc is so frustrating. So much of Linux is stuck with terrible patterns from the 80s.

haunter 2y ago
To more or less this what snap, AppImage, flatpak etc tries to solve. And honestly it works. One part of Steam Deck's success that it was entirely built on an immutable flatpak based distro (Arch)
- trissi1996 2y ago
  AFAIK Arch is neither flatpack-based nor immutable by default, that's just how valve configured it, or am I missing something since I've used it a few years ago ? Still nicely done on valve's part.
- opan 2y ago
  Arch does not normally use or make you use flatpaks, nor is it immutable. You describe SteamOS, which is based on Arch, but with changes to it. This is more clearing up ambiguity for others reading than a correction, there's a decent chance you knew this already. Fedora Silverblue is a distro which heavily uses flatpaks and is immutable out of the box. I believe this is what Bazzite, a community alternative to SteamOS, is based on.
  - haunter 2y ago
    Yes my bad for the wording. I also use Fedora Kinoite on my daily driver Thinkpad.
- forrestthewoods 2y ago
  > more or less this what snap, AppImage, flatpak etc tries to solve. Yes. Seems really complicated though. It’s a whole lot of machinery and complexity to achieve what should be a very simple zip + double-click. The Linux model is just inherently complex.
  - somat 2y ago
    The linux model exposes it's complexity to the end user. Because of this the model is usually a lot simpler(the average user is expected to understand it). In the windows world the model is this huge unknowable beast with a facade over it. if you are fine with the facade this works great, but when things go wrong, it is much harder, a soul crushing wall of propriety internal interfaces. that is, it makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder. Don't get me wrong microsoft is one of the good guys here, compared to apple they are a very programmer focused company and try very hard to provide the information needed to do things with the os. There are people who are very good with windows and understand it well, I just never liked all the hidden complexity and am much happier with linux and it's explicit complexity. I have to admit that statement is a bit of a lie, I actually think linux is far to complex and am happier with openbsd, which exposes and expects even more of the end user and is correspondingly much simpler.
    - ffgjgf1 2y ago
      maximizing the amount of complexity just because your current users are capable of dealing it and often no other benefits whatsoever (of course not always) just doesn’t seem like a great strategy.
      - j_maffe 2y ago
        Why would any designer intentionally maximize complexity? It's one of the core tenants of design to minimize complexity.
    - forrestthewoods 2y ago
      > The linux model exposes it's complexity to the end user. Because of this the model is usually a lot simpler(the average user is expected to understand it). In the windows world the model is this huge unknowable beast with a facade over it. if you are fine with the facade this works great, but when things go wrong, it is much harder, a soul crushing wall of propriety internal interfaces. that is, it makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder. This has not been my experience in the slightest. Supporting “Linux” is radically harder, more complex, more error prone, and more miserable than supporting Windows. YMMV.
account42 2y ago
You can compile against the oldest glibc you want to support and it will work on newer ones.

haunter 2y ago

To more or less this what snap, AppImage, flatpak etc tries to solve. And honestly it works. One part of Steam Deck's success that it was entirely built on an immutable flatpak based distro (Arch)

trissi1996 2y ago
AFAIK Arch is neither flatpack-based nor immutable by default, that's just how valve configured it, or am I missing something since I've used it a few years ago ? Still nicely done on valve's part.
opan 2y ago
Arch does not normally use or make you use flatpaks, nor is it immutable. You describe SteamOS, which is based on Arch, but with changes to it. This is more clearing up ambiguity for others reading than a correction, there's a decent chance you knew this already. Fedora Silverblue is a distro which heavily uses flatpaks and is immutable out of the box. I believe this is what Bazzite, a community alternative to SteamOS, is based on.
- haunter 2y ago
  Yes my bad for the wording. I also use Fedora Kinoite on my daily driver Thinkpad.
forrestthewoods 2y ago
> more or less this what snap, AppImage, flatpak etc tries to solve. Yes. Seems really complicated though. It’s a whole lot of machinery and complexity to achieve what should be a very simple zip + double-click. The Linux model is just inherently complex.
- somat 2y ago
  The linux model exposes it's complexity to the end user. Because of this the model is usually a lot simpler(the average user is expected to understand it). In the windows world the model is this huge unknowable beast with a facade over it. if you are fine with the facade this works great, but when things go wrong, it is much harder, a soul crushing wall of propriety internal interfaces. that is, it makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder. Don't get me wrong microsoft is one of the good guys here, compared to apple they are a very programmer focused company and try very hard to provide the information needed to do things with the os. There are people who are very good with windows and understand it well, I just never liked all the hidden complexity and am much happier with linux and it's explicit complexity. I have to admit that statement is a bit of a lie, I actually think linux is far to complex and am happier with openbsd, which exposes and expects even more of the end user and is correspondingly much simpler.
  - ffgjgf1 2y ago
    maximizing the amount of complexity just because your current users are capable of dealing it and often no other benefits whatsoever (of course not always) just doesn’t seem like a great strategy.
    - j_maffe 2y ago
      Why would any designer intentionally maximize complexity? It's one of the core tenants of design to minimize complexity.
  - forrestthewoods 2y ago
    > The linux model exposes it's complexity to the end user. Because of this the model is usually a lot simpler(the average user is expected to understand it). In the windows world the model is this huge unknowable beast with a facade over it. if you are fine with the facade this works great, but when things go wrong, it is much harder, a soul crushing wall of propriety internal interfaces. that is, it makes the easy things easier and the hard things harder. This has not been my experience in the slightest. Supporting “Linux” is radically harder, more complex, more error prone, and more miserable than supporting Windows. YMMV.

account42 2y ago

You can compile against the oldest glibc you want to support and it will work on newer ones.