4 ms·

What you're really saying is "I disagree with you, but I'm going to take a rhetorical roundabout in which I attempt to disqualify your argument by calling it 'n

What you're really saying is "I disagree with you, but I'm going to take a rhetorical roundabout in which I attempt to disqualify your argument by calling it 'not helpful'" > All your criticism can be summed up by "it doesn't look like a Mac, therefore it's the wrong approach". No, my criticism can be summed up like so: If you create unnecessary, reducible complexity, then add even more complexity on top of that to manage it, you're doing it wrong. > It's no coincidence each and every developer in my office who use a Mac also has either ports or brew installed. You're right. It's not. First of all, note what you said: every developer. Second of all, note what they're installing: UNIX software. UNIX software is a distribution mess, and it requires a UNIX package manager. If you don't create the mess in the first place, you don't need a package manager to manage it. Let third-party packaging systems deal with the UNIX packaging mess, and let engineers who need that software deal with the package managers needed to manage it. Net result: Your users (which includes engineers when they don't have their software development hat on) don't have to deal with the package management disaster unless they need to deal with UNIX software. QED.

rbanffy 13y ago
> If you create unnecessary, reducible complexity, then add even more complexity on top of that to manage it, you're doing it wrong. I believe the fact nobody has been able to reduce the "reducible" complexity you point out for the past 40 years is telling. And no, the NeXT .app folder thing does not reduce it - it replaces the shared library "problem" with other problems (security and just plain malfunction) through obsolete duplicate libraries that may or may not get updated by someone other than the packager. > First of all, note what you said: every developer. I'm sorry, but I don't think BeOS was ever aimed at someone other than developers. It would be quite surprising if Haiku were aimed at a different public. Again, I fail to see your problem with package management. My mother uses a Linux machine and the only contact with package managers she has is the auto-update feature - and her machine is working for 4 straight years without a full reinstall, which is more than most other OSs can say about machines that are not actively managed by someone knowledgeable. I manage dozens of Linux machines and I never experienced the package management disasters you describe. Maybe you should get some first hand experience and, dare I say, read the manual. If you experience a significantly larger number of disasters than your peers, the problem is most likely not the tooling.
- pifflesnort 13y ago
  So you're saying that Mac OS, Mac OS X, Android, and iOS are all broken? And Linux's software distribution mechanism is working for end users? > I'm sorry, but I don't think BeOS was ever aimed at someone other than developers. It would be quite surprising if Haiku were aimed at a different public. The involvement of former Apple employees, targeting Macs, the attempted sale to Apple, the single-user OS, the UI riffing off MacOS, the focus on media, the simple UI -- those we're all flukes? It was actually meant to be a difficult to use Linux clone that focused on shipping packaged UNIX software, despite its particularly weak posix compatibility and complete non-standard directory layout? I was hacking on BeOS since DR2. I have friends who worked there. It was contemporary with my career, and I was following Apple's and Be's parallel efforts closely. It was, as far as my knowledge and experience goes, a user-focused operating system ala MacOS. > Maybe you should get some first hand experience and, dare I say, read the manual. If you experience a significantly larger number of disasters than your peers, the problem is most likely not the tooling. Many years ago, I wrote one one of the package managers in wide use today. Then I spent years shipping software for multiple platforms. I think I understand the trade-offs, and implementing package management only made the underlying failure of the Linux package manager model more clear. What kind of ridiculous system requires an army of volunteers to maintain a graph of dependencies in lockstep, making it nearly impossible for 3rd party developers to directly release simple binaries that work across their user's systems. Instead we have to add Chrome package repos to our Ubuntu installations that break across major releases. It's stupid. There are better ways, which are evidenced by the fact that they're working, today, and have been working for some 20 odd years, and are being further defined in the AppStore model. Maybe you should stop being so selfish by trying to force your inexperience and UNIX sysadmin use case on everyone.
  - rbanffy 13y ago
    > So you're saying that Mac OS, Mac OS X, Android, and iOS are all broken? No. I said they solve some problems and don't solve others. > And Linux's software distribution mechanism is working for end users? I am yet to meet a non-technical Linux user who has experienced what could be described as "package management disaster". Software management is mostly automated for their use cases. > Maybe you should stop being so selfish by trying to force your inexperience and UNIX sysadmin use case on everyone. I solve my problems, you solve yours. Deal with it.

rbanffy 13y ago

> If you create unnecessary, reducible complexity, then add even more complexity on top of that to manage it, you're doing it wrong. I believe the fact nobody has been able to reduce the "reducible" complexity you point out for the past 40 years is telling. And no, the NeXT .app folder thing does not reduce it - it replaces the shared library "problem" with other problems (security and just plain malfunction) through obsolete duplicate libraries that may or may not get updated by someone other than the packager. > First of all, note what you said: every developer. I'm sorry, but I don't think BeOS was ever aimed at someone other than developers. It would be quite surprising if Haiku were aimed at a different public. Again, I fail to see your problem with package management. My mother uses a Linux machine and the only contact with package managers she has is the auto-update feature - and her machine is working for 4 straight years without a full reinstall, which is more than most other OSs can say about machines that are not actively managed by someone knowledgeable. I manage dozens of Linux machines and I never experienced the package management disasters you describe. Maybe you should get some first hand experience and, dare I say, read the manual. If you experience a significantly larger number of disasters than your peers, the problem is most likely not the tooling.

pifflesnort 13y ago
So you're saying that Mac OS, Mac OS X, Android, and iOS are all broken? And Linux's software distribution mechanism is working for end users? > I'm sorry, but I don't think BeOS was ever aimed at someone other than developers. It would be quite surprising if Haiku were aimed at a different public. The involvement of former Apple employees, targeting Macs, the attempted sale to Apple, the single-user OS, the UI riffing off MacOS, the focus on media, the simple UI -- those we're all flukes? It was actually meant to be a difficult to use Linux clone that focused on shipping packaged UNIX software, despite its particularly weak posix compatibility and complete non-standard directory layout? I was hacking on BeOS since DR2. I have friends who worked there. It was contemporary with my career, and I was following Apple's and Be's parallel efforts closely. It was, as far as my knowledge and experience goes, a user-focused operating system ala MacOS. > Maybe you should get some first hand experience and, dare I say, read the manual. If you experience a significantly larger number of disasters than your peers, the problem is most likely not the tooling. Many years ago, I wrote one one of the package managers in wide use today. Then I spent years shipping software for multiple platforms. I think I understand the trade-offs, and implementing package management only made the underlying failure of the Linux package manager model more clear. What kind of ridiculous system requires an army of volunteers to maintain a graph of dependencies in lockstep, making it nearly impossible for 3rd party developers to directly release simple binaries that work across their user's systems. Instead we have to add Chrome package repos to our Ubuntu installations that break across major releases. It's stupid. There are better ways, which are evidenced by the fact that they're working, today, and have been working for some 20 odd years, and are being further defined in the AppStore model. Maybe you should stop being so selfish by trying to force your inexperience and UNIX sysadmin use case on everyone.
- rbanffy 13y ago
  > So you're saying that Mac OS, Mac OS X, Android, and iOS are all broken? No. I said they solve some problems and don't solve others. > And Linux's software distribution mechanism is working for end users? I am yet to meet a non-technical Linux user who has experienced what could be described as "package management disaster". Software management is mostly automated for their use cases. > Maybe you should stop being so selfish by trying to force your inexperience and UNIX sysadmin use case on everyone. I solve my problems, you solve yours. Deal with it.