3 ms·

>I haven't had wifi issues with Ubuntu for over 5 years. No surprise there. Some wifi hardware is supported out of the box and will just work. That is not the

by copx 13y ago

>I haven't had wifi issues with Ubuntu for over 5 years. No surprise there. Some wifi hardware is supported out of the box and will just work. That is not the problem. The pain starts when something does not just work. >What computer did you have these problems with, where you needed to install a new kernel module? Given that I am a major nerd I have multiple ones and admin even more ones. I think that particular episode happened with an Asus Eee Box B202 and an older version of Ubuntu. > but OSX/iOS use a package manager. I do not use anything Apple but if I recall correctly OS X uses self-contained .app bundles i.e. the apps usually include all their dependencies except those present on a particular OS X version by default. It is the "dependency management" done by Linux package managers which I hate. Namely that every app becomes a tangled web of dependencies with unlimited potential for pain. Apps should be self-contained, the OS should be a stable, well-defined platform to run them. I.e. "requires Window XP or newer" or "requires Mac OS X 10.6 or newer" is okay, "requires [long list of packages]" is not. That model will cause problems sooner or later. "I updated X and suddenly Y no longer works" etc. As a programmer I find the concept of simply automatically updating libfoo 2.1.x to libfoo 2.1.y because "the developers say it does not break compatibility" scary. Software is written by people, developers accidentally break compatibility all the time, or write software which depends on buggy behavior, behavior which later gets fixed by other developers, thus breaking said software. Thus all common Linux package managers are themselves broken by design. They are only acceptable if you accept that occasionally some things will just stop working after a system update. >Do you enjoy manually updating software one app at a time? I do not often have to update any software and when I do it I can usually try the new version without uninstalling the old one easily and I know that its installation will not affect any other apps on my system. Yes, I enjoy that. >the times a regular user needs to do that are becoming few and very far between. No disagreement there, but as I said, personally I am not willing to put up with an OS where this happens, no matter how rarely it happens - unless I have to.

asdfs 13y ago
>As a programmer I find the concept of simply automatically updating libfoo 2.1.x to libfoo 2.1.y because "the developers say it does not break compatibility" scary. Software is written by people, developers accidentally break compatibility all the time, or write software which depends on buggy behavior, behavior which later gets fixed by other developers, thus breaking said software. Thus all common Linux package managers are themselves broken by design. They are only acceptable if you accept that occasionally some things will just stop working after a system update. Sounds like you'd be interested in NixOS.
mikegioia 13y ago
I understand your concern for "dependency hell", but to be frank, your arguments come off uninformed to me. Thus all common Linux package managers are themselves broken by design. I can't really see how you'd debate your way out of that. If you mean package management is inherently broken because different software may depend on different versions of libraries then that sounds like an issue you'd have with the software developer. I know that in itself could be a gripe with Linux software, but show me one regular computer user who has ever experienced broken package dependencies. The vast, VAST majority of regular Ubuntu user software is installed through the Software Center and the only times I've ever gotten broken dependencies were when I was specifically trying to install an older version of something. I do not use anything Apple but if I recall correctly OS X uses self-contained .app bundles i.e. the apps usually include all their dependencies except those present on a particular OS X version by default. OSX has .dmg files for installing applications. Debian's .deb packages are the exact same thing. Bundling all dependencies can be done in Linux the same way -- again the app developer can statically link to libraries. The fact of the matter is that Linux is NOT a usability nightmare and it's dishonest to say that. Experiencing some arcane error with an old version of Ubuntu on a six year old computer doesn't afford anyone the right to claim that the modern linux OS is a usability nightmare.
- sbuk 13y ago
  I'd be careful accusing people of being uninformed and dishonest, especially when you make errors in your own post. .dmg files are disk images. In the case you are discussing the disk image contains an .app package that is copied to the users (or more generally, the systems) Applications folder. A closer equivalent of the .deb file would be the .pkg file, which works in a similar manner as you describe. As to whether 'Linux' is a usability nightmare or not I'd argue is purely subjective. It is disingenuous to suggest that there isn't a steeper learning curve, however slight and for whatever reason it exists.
  - mikegioia 13y ago
    We're talking about dishonesty in saying that "Linux is a usability nightmare" from an article about improving Windows' usability. I'm not talking about learning curve here! He cited 2 examples regarding Linux's usability that I don't think are relevant at all.
mgkimsal 13y ago
Main issue seems to me that Linux distros use the same mechanisms for installing/updating userland apps/code as for installing/updating system-level libraries and kernel stuff. It's never quite felt right to me, but has allowed and seemed to encourage the weird dependency trees that end up wanting replace entire GUI toolkits because a desktop app was compiled against a certain version of libfoo, which then blithely tries to update 900 packages on your system when you just wanted one little app. This fear/anger/resistance towards static bundling in the linux world is the main culprit, it seems, and I don't think anything short of a cultural revolution in the linux world will change that. The last cultural revolution seemed to be a large mass exodus of desktop linux folks migrating to osx a decade ago.

by copx 13y ago

asdfs 13y ago

>As a programmer I find the concept of simply automatically updating libfoo 2.1.x to libfoo 2.1.y because "the developers say it does not break compatibility" scary. Software is written by people, developers accidentally break compatibility all the time, or write software which depends on buggy behavior, behavior which later gets fixed by other developers, thus breaking said software. Thus all common Linux package managers are themselves broken by design. They are only acceptable if you accept that occasionally some things will just stop working after a system update. Sounds like you'd be interested in NixOS.

mikegioia 13y ago

I understand your concern for "dependency hell", but to be frank, your arguments come off uninformed to me. Thus all common Linux package managers are themselves broken by design. I can't really see how you'd debate your way out of that. If you mean package management is inherently broken because different software may depend on different versions of libraries then that sounds like an issue you'd have with the software developer. I know that in itself could be a gripe with Linux software, but show me one regular computer user who has ever experienced broken package dependencies. The vast, VAST majority of regular Ubuntu user software is installed through the Software Center and the only times I've ever gotten broken dependencies were when I was specifically trying to install an older version of something. I do not use anything Apple but if I recall correctly OS X uses self-contained .app bundles i.e. the apps usually include all their dependencies except those present on a particular OS X version by default. OSX has .dmg files for installing applications. Debian's .deb packages are the exact same thing. Bundling all dependencies can be done in Linux the same way -- again the app developer can statically link to libraries. The fact of the matter is that Linux is NOT a usability nightmare and it's dishonest to say that. Experiencing some arcane error with an old version of Ubuntu on a six year old computer doesn't afford anyone the right to claim that the modern linux OS is a usability nightmare.

sbuk 13y ago
I'd be careful accusing people of being uninformed and dishonest, especially when you make errors in your own post. .dmg files are disk images. In the case you are discussing the disk image contains an .app package that is copied to the users (or more generally, the systems) Applications folder. A closer equivalent of the .deb file would be the .pkg file, which works in a similar manner as you describe. As to whether 'Linux' is a usability nightmare or not I'd argue is purely subjective. It is disingenuous to suggest that there isn't a steeper learning curve, however slight and for whatever reason it exists.
- mikegioia 13y ago
  We're talking about dishonesty in saying that "Linux is a usability nightmare" from an article about improving Windows' usability. I'm not talking about learning curve here! He cited 2 examples regarding Linux's usability that I don't think are relevant at all.

mgkimsal 13y ago

Main issue seems to me that Linux distros use the same mechanisms for installing/updating userland apps/code as for installing/updating system-level libraries and kernel stuff. It's never quite felt right to me, but has allowed and seemed to encourage the weird dependency trees that end up wanting replace entire GUI toolkits because a desktop app was compiled against a certain version of libfoo, which then blithely tries to update 900 packages on your system when you just wanted one little app. This fear/anger/resistance towards static bundling in the linux world is the main culprit, it seems, and I don't think anything short of a cultural revolution in the linux world will change that. The last cultural revolution seemed to be a large mass exodus of desktop linux folks migrating to osx a decade ago.