quotes like this are unhelpful; whatever effort I was making to form a reasonable opinion got shattered right there. That's a usecase of someone looking for trouble; not a problem worth solving. Maybe Lennart just got excited by the possibilities but it makes for a terrible pitch. Locking in on Btrfs early on is also distracting since it's really only about the concept of fs remaps.Note that in result this allows installing not only multiple end-user applications into the same btrfs volume, but also multiple operating systems, multiple system instances
"What the user wants" is pretty airy since Windows/OSX have their fair share of problems but then he talks about helping software vendors with runtime dependencies - which is it? Maybe there's a great project there to solve real problems but there's too much noise to see it. FOCUS please!
And, yes, it is a problem, because only by pointing at what other distros do is one not looking at what oneself can do. And there will always be some distro that is not going to care about what the rest of the world does and one will always keep running into this problem. The last thing a distro really should to do is to depend on other distros.
The best chance still is to reduce the number of dependencies, to start working on a standard for those that remain, and to become open to even fully statically linked binaries. The later is not ideal, but when it means a package is available in a large-static form, too, then it has a good chance for the package to become popular beyond its distro and thereby adding to the popularity of the distro itself. This too helps in bringing down the barriers between distros.
Last edited by sdack; 09-04-2014 at 02:11 PM.
No, we don't need to support static linking. Static linking is for idiots, because it means the only way to fix bugs in a common library is to wait for a new version of your app.
Hey, guess what? I run Linux because I don't want to run an insecure heap of crap like Windows. Please stop trying to turn it into one.
Before that, we had "configuration" in /etc that was changed dynamically at runtime ( mtab and hosts after updating hostname).
Additionally, the base system was spread over so many directories that mounting it from NFS was very problematic.
Systemd enforces a really strict design discipline, but this is exactly what makes a system well engineered.
And in addition to this, do you offer fully statically linked packages to work around problems until a standard has been found. Yes, I agree with you that such packages are difficult to fix when a bug is found. You then have to drop it and download a newer package. But the point is that it can be used with other distros, too, opposed to not at all.
Btrfs will only replace old problems with new problems. In the end will one still need to download a package containing binaries and libraries. Btrfs will not avoid the problem of missing libraries when there is no standard. In the worst case would a btrfs volume need to ship an application with all libraries, including libc, to avoid missing ones and version mismatches, and would not be much different from an ELF file of the same size.
And just to mention it on the side, statically linked binaries run about 5%-7% faster than dynamically linked ones, because these require less or no position independent code (PIC). Gamers are willing to give a kidney for such a bonus and any distro, which does not offer it will get ignored by gamers.
Last edited by sdack; 09-04-2014 at 06:52 PM.
Really awesome proposal for how to create runtime. It has everything Lennart and his cabal forgot in their otherwise nice project. It touches 3 major missing points. What runtime is? What is goal of the runtime? What should something like runtime mean for users and developers?
i don't know about other people, so i say this as my viewpoint. if every project approached runtimes with this direction, that would be awesome.