4 ms·

To the extent binary distribution is "unstable" on Linux, it's because users aren't expected to just download random binaries from wherever, as is normal on Win

by pdonis 2y ago

To the extent binary distribution is "unstable" on Linux, it's because users aren't expected to just download random binaries from wherever, as is normal on Windows (and Mac, for that matter). Users are expected to either obtain binaries from their distro, or compile them from source. In either case, all of the issues about binary distribution being "unstable" are invisible to users. Which is the point. People who want the broken Windows software model can just..run Windows. The last thing any sane Linux user wants is to make Linux into Windows. I run Linux to avoid Windows.

trelane 2y ago
There's also flatpak and friends
johnea 2y ago
Thank you very much! I was about to post almost the same thing, so I'll reply to your post instead (and upvote): It's pretty funny to read a critisism of linux s/w distribution along the lines of the dificulty of distributing binaries. This is one of the biggest security vulnerabilities of windows. 3rd parties distributing binary executables. At least in a typical linux distro the binary is built by the distributing org, with some review of where the source comes from. Downloading a windows app from the internet one has no idea what source is included in that binary. I'm also not a fan of non-distro based systems such as flatpack. Again, I would prefer my binaries built by the distribution, or if need be, locally.
- nice_byte 2y ago
  explain to me why the HELL should i be limited to only running binaries that my distro vendor has deigned to provide, or jump through endless hoops to obtain and build source code (which by the way might not even be obtainable OR buildable). if i have a binary from 5, 10, 15 years ago i should just be able to fucking run it on my fucking computer.
  - johnea 2y ago
    Then run your "fuzzy kitty plays on your desktop" binary executable, downloaded from we-swear-we-wont-hack-you.com, and live with the consequences. In fact this is the way 3rd party windoze executables are typically distributed. Nobody's stopping you... p.s. The above seems like a trolling reply, but I always play the straight man...
- dartharva 2y ago
  > At least in a typical linux distro the binary is built by the distributing org, with some review of where the source comes from. This "feature" falls apart for nonfree software, which most commercial apps are. You can use Spotify and Steam's PPA but will similarly have no idea what source was included in them.
- int_19h 2y ago
  > At least in a typical linux distro the binary is built by the distributing org ... which often patches upstream code in ways that upstream neither approves of nor wants to support. And then, when things break, the user can't go upstream, and the distro package maintainers simply don't have enough time to deal with all the user reports.
scheeseman486 2y ago
There are a lot of reasons to avoid Windows outside of package/software management. Linux has appimage, it's already capable of running "loose" native executables like Windows does. Flatpak, Snap and Docker all break the "distro repository or compile from source" model. The primary method of playing video games is installing Steam and running Windows software inside a container. This purist vision you have of Linux doesn't exist.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > This purist vision you have of Linux doesn't exist. It does on my computer, and I suspect on a lot of Linux users' computers.
  - scheeseman486 2y ago
    Linux users? That is, people who use a device that runs Linux? Like Android? Or you mean desktop Linux users, though there aren't "a lot" of those. There's the business/corpo/science deployments but I don't think we're talking about that, but rather specifically home use. So we're talking mostly enthusiasts. I'd imagine many of those and perhaps even most at least lightly game and Steam is effectively the default place to purchase games on Linux. Do you run anything in an emulator? Impure! Purge with fire! The software repository+compile from source paradigm isn't "Linux", it's not even "desktop Linux". Linux can execute software in a myriad of different ways, what makes Linux Linux is that it's infinitely flexible.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      > you mean desktop Linux users Obviously, since that's what the article and this discussion is about. > there aren't "a lot" of those Depends on what you consider "a lot", I guess. The article that this discussion is talking about apparently thinks there are enough to make its proposal for "converting Linux to Windows" worth an effort.
      - scheeseman486 2y ago
vagab0nd 2y ago
Exactly this. In fact, what's a distro if not basically a well-maintained app directory?
dartharva 2y ago
Speak for yourself. I have been using Linux for a decade and would want nothing more if standalone application setups like those in Windows became the norm of software distribution. Centralized package management is a curse. Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS. Distros are not quite "the OS". You don't need a distro to run Linux. The role distros play as far as Linux applications are concerned is more like an app store in the Windows (or Mac) world. Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way basically since their inception, and their desktop OS has been becoming more and more like that. So has Windows.
  - dartharva 2y ago
    > Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way... So has Windows. Is that where we want desktop Linux to go?
    - pdonis 2y ago
      If you mean, do we want desktop Linux to have distros, that ship sailed several decades ago. Yes, you don't need a distro to run Linux (as I said before), but most people who run Linux use one. However, Linux distros, while they play an app store-like role, are still very different from the Windows or Mac app stores. First, they don't restrict what else you can install on the system; you don't have to jailbreak your Linux computer to install something that the distro doesn't package. Second, they don't insist that you set up an account and hand over your personal information, or nag you constantly if you don't do that.
- HappMacDonald 2y ago
  OTOH I view application installation as a separate skill from $THING_THIS_APP_DOES. So I would rather the app authors just focus on perfecting their apps, while said apps can then be packaged and distributed in bulk by different sets of people trained to handle those challenges. What I very certainly do NOT want is: * Apps automatically checking for updates on startup — since they can't check while they are off — leading to needlessly leaked data crossing the network about exactly when I'm starting up exactly which apps (since they dial home to predictable locations regardless of TLS usage) * Apps constantly filling systray with their own bespoke updaters (and "accelerators" which just means the app is running 24/7 but minimized to tray ;P ) * App launches updater, updater window says "can't update because app is running". Close app, wait for update, now I have to go hunt down the document I had originally opened the app with. Next time an app launches an updater, I leave it on its splash screen and go to close the app.. naturally that also closes the updater since this time around the one is a sub-process of the other. (I recall earlier versions of Wireshark causing me much grief on these fronts, for example) * More diverse attack surface area for hackers to infect my PC: instead of trying to juke a distro who has at least some experience and vested interest in defending against poisoning, just juke any single software author less specialized in distribution security and take over their distribution channel instead.
DeathArrow 2y ago
>People who want the broken Windows software model can just..run Windows That's what billions of people do. :)

by pdonis 2y ago

trelane 2y ago

There's also flatpak and friends

johnea 2y ago

Thank you very much! I was about to post almost the same thing, so I'll reply to your post instead (and upvote): It's pretty funny to read a critisism of linux s/w distribution along the lines of the dificulty of distributing binaries. This is one of the biggest security vulnerabilities of windows. 3rd parties distributing binary executables. At least in a typical linux distro the binary is built by the distributing org, with some review of where the source comes from. Downloading a windows app from the internet one has no idea what source is included in that binary. I'm also not a fan of non-distro based systems such as flatpack. Again, I would prefer my binaries built by the distribution, or if need be, locally.

nice_byte 2y ago
explain to me why the HELL should i be limited to only running binaries that my distro vendor has deigned to provide, or jump through endless hoops to obtain and build source code (which by the way might not even be obtainable OR buildable). if i have a binary from 5, 10, 15 years ago i should just be able to fucking run it on my fucking computer.
- johnea 2y ago
  Then run your "fuzzy kitty plays on your desktop" binary executable, downloaded from we-swear-we-wont-hack-you.com, and live with the consequences. In fact this is the way 3rd party windoze executables are typically distributed. Nobody's stopping you... p.s. The above seems like a trolling reply, but I always play the straight man...
dartharva 2y ago
> At least in a typical linux distro the binary is built by the distributing org, with some review of where the source comes from. This "feature" falls apart for nonfree software, which most commercial apps are. You can use Spotify and Steam's PPA but will similarly have no idea what source was included in them.
int_19h 2y ago
> At least in a typical linux distro the binary is built by the distributing org ... which often patches upstream code in ways that upstream neither approves of nor wants to support. And then, when things break, the user can't go upstream, and the distro package maintainers simply don't have enough time to deal with all the user reports.

scheeseman486 2y ago

There are a lot of reasons to avoid Windows outside of package/software management. Linux has appimage, it's already capable of running "loose" native executables like Windows does. Flatpak, Snap and Docker all break the "distro repository or compile from source" model. The primary method of playing video games is installing Steam and running Windows software inside a container. This purist vision you have of Linux doesn't exist.

pdonis 2y ago
> This purist vision you have of Linux doesn't exist. It does on my computer, and I suspect on a lot of Linux users' computers.
- scheeseman486 2y ago
  Linux users? That is, people who use a device that runs Linux? Like Android? Or you mean desktop Linux users, though there aren't "a lot" of those. There's the business/corpo/science deployments but I don't think we're talking about that, but rather specifically home use. So we're talking mostly enthusiasts. I'd imagine many of those and perhaps even most at least lightly game and Steam is effectively the default place to purchase games on Linux. Do you run anything in an emulator? Impure! Purge with fire! The software repository+compile from source paradigm isn't "Linux", it's not even "desktop Linux". Linux can execute software in a myriad of different ways, what makes Linux Linux is that it's infinitely flexible.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > you mean desktop Linux users Obviously, since that's what the article and this discussion is about. > there aren't "a lot" of those Depends on what you consider "a lot", I guess. The article that this discussion is talking about apparently thinks there are enough to make its proposal for "converting Linux to Windows" worth an effort.
    - scheeseman486 2y ago

vagab0nd 2y ago

Exactly this. In fact, what's a distro if not basically a well-maintained app directory?

dartharva 2y ago

Speak for yourself. I have been using Linux for a decade and would want nothing more if standalone application setups like those in Windows became the norm of software distribution. Centralized package management is a curse. Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS.

pdonis 2y ago
> Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS. Distros are not quite "the OS". You don't need a distro to run Linux. The role distros play as far as Linux applications are concerned is more like an app store in the Windows (or Mac) world. Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way basically since their inception, and their desktop OS has been becoming more and more like that. So has Windows.
- dartharva 2y ago
  > Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way... So has Windows. Is that where we want desktop Linux to go?
  - pdonis 2y ago
    If you mean, do we want desktop Linux to have distros, that ship sailed several decades ago. Yes, you don't need a distro to run Linux (as I said before), but most people who run Linux use one. However, Linux distros, while they play an app store-like role, are still very different from the Windows or Mac app stores. First, they don't restrict what else you can install on the system; you don't have to jailbreak your Linux computer to install something that the distro doesn't package. Second, they don't insist that you set up an account and hand over your personal information, or nag you constantly if you don't do that.
HappMacDonald 2y ago
OTOH I view application installation as a separate skill from $THING_THIS_APP_DOES. So I would rather the app authors just focus on perfecting their apps, while said apps can then be packaged and distributed in bulk by different sets of people trained to handle those challenges. What I very certainly do NOT want is: * Apps automatically checking for updates on startup — since they can't check while they are off — leading to needlessly leaked data crossing the network about exactly when I'm starting up exactly which apps (since they dial home to predictable locations regardless of TLS usage) * Apps constantly filling systray with their own bespoke updaters (and "accelerators" which just means the app is running 24/7 but minimized to tray ;P ) * App launches updater, updater window says "can't update because app is running". Close app, wait for update, now I have to go hunt down the document I had originally opened the app with. Next time an app launches an updater, I leave it on its splash screen and go to close the app.. naturally that also closes the updater since this time around the one is a sub-process of the other. (I recall earlier versions of Wireshark causing me much grief on these fronts, for example) * More diverse attack surface area for hackers to infect my PC: instead of trying to juke a distro who has at least some experience and vested interest in defending against poisoning, just juke any single software author less specialized in distribution security and take over their distribution channel instead.

DeathArrow 2y ago

>People who want the broken Windows software model can just..run Windows That's what billions of people do. :)