3 ms·

Yes, 1980s/early 90s tooling is mostly similar in the amount of effort it put into optimizations that are simply irrelevant today. And it still works, if you're

Yes, 1980s/early 90s tooling is mostly similar in the amount of effort it put into optimizations that are simply irrelevant today. And it still works, if you're a fat lazy enterprise that can afford much, much more horrible inefficiencies than those rpm/deb tooling inflicts on its users. But that doesn't make it superior, or something to be proud of.

nineteen999 2y ago
Not sure if you're arguing against common packaging systems still in wide use, or arguing for more modern packaging systems (arch, nix, docker, flatpak, snaps etc). The latter will all "win" on their merits at some point and become fat and lazy themselves as they evolve and grow, or fail to gain marketshare and wither. For now the fat lazy ones hold the lion's share, they are what Enterprise customers are used to dealing with, because those companies prefer reliable, predictable and boring. Obviously you can use whatever you want in your startup, 95% might be here now but probably gone tomorrow.
- creshal 2y ago
  Really, I'm not sure what the point of your posts is. You don't like change, great for you? > arch, nix, docker, flatpak, snaps etc Lumping all of these into the same category doesn't even make sense, other from a "they're all things invented after 2000 and I don't wanna learn anything new" perspective. > The latter will all "win" on their merits at some point and become fat and lazy themselves as they evolve and grow Can you back up your nihilism? > those companies prefer reliable, predictable and boring. They prefer what they're used to, even if it's neither reliable nor predictable due to having too many moving parts (that don't even make sense any more), and are only boring in the sense that you know exactly how wasteful and brittle they're gonna be and how much effort you will waste interacting with them. And even then, their preferences don't stop most "boring big enterprise" companies from using newer technologies, just look at docker. Your condescending false dichtomy is entirely pointless.

nineteen999 2y ago

Not sure if you're arguing against common packaging systems still in wide use, or arguing for more modern packaging systems (arch, nix, docker, flatpak, snaps etc). The latter will all "win" on their merits at some point and become fat and lazy themselves as they evolve and grow, or fail to gain marketshare and wither. For now the fat lazy ones hold the lion's share, they are what Enterprise customers are used to dealing with, because those companies prefer reliable, predictable and boring. Obviously you can use whatever you want in your startup, 95% might be here now but probably gone tomorrow.

creshal 2y ago
Really, I'm not sure what the point of your posts is. You don't like change, great for you? > arch, nix, docker, flatpak, snaps etc Lumping all of these into the same category doesn't even make sense, other from a "they're all things invented after 2000 and I don't wanna learn anything new" perspective. > The latter will all "win" on their merits at some point and become fat and lazy themselves as they evolve and grow Can you back up your nihilism? > those companies prefer reliable, predictable and boring. They prefer what they're used to, even if it's neither reliable nor predictable due to having too many moving parts (that don't even make sense any more), and are only boring in the sense that you know exactly how wasteful and brittle they're gonna be and how much effort you will waste interacting with them. And even then, their preferences don't stop most "boring big enterprise" companies from using newer technologies, just look at docker. Your condescending false dichtomy is entirely pointless.