Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Team Silverblue Succeeds Fedora Atomic Workstation, Aims To Be In Great Shape By F30

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by Candy View Post
    Wait ? 217.5 MB GNOME ? I thought I will be getting GIMP only ?
    applications shipped with flatpack use their own unified runtime, not your distro's libs. That's the whole pont of it. It's fully self-contained.

    But why ?
    Because the application shipped by flatpack was compiled an tested against the libraries in the flatpack runtime it downloads, NOT against the libs in your distro. Trying to run an application with different libs than the ones it was tested on, compiled with different major compiler versions and all that jazz is going to cause breakage.

    Did you miss my post here https://www.phoronix.com/forums/foru...20#post1022420 or the post above it where I link the rants of software developers?

    I think there is still some more work needed to get me convinced.
    None is trying to sell you on flatpack, you may need it, or not.

    I and pal666 are just correcting the ignorant bullshit you post. You are free to learn something from this, or not.

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by Anvil View Post
      flatpak is a Mess, its one of the reasons i got rid of linux. i may go back to it but it maynot be Fedora. its a good way to keep New users away from Linux this Flatpak Mess.

      im sure Microsoft will be rubbing there Hands together
      Yeah, Microsoft will love to get their hands on that juicy less-than-1% of the desktop market while it's getting raped on the embedded and server and HPC markets.


      you got that right, but i'd try about 10 years.
      your butt. Is it hurting much?

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
        I and pal666 are just correcting the ignorant bullshit you post.
        Everyone feel free to test flatpak on your own. Enter the 3 lines I've posted on the first page of this comment section. Dive into the directory where flatpak installs all the stuff. Issue an ls command or two and make your own conclusions. If that's what you want. Then be it. It's clearly nothing that I would want to have on my or my customers systems. Not to mention on critical infrastructures like military environments etc.. This is impossible to QS and sell - from a systems integration point of view and the view from an IT-systems company that have direct customers relations and need to QS this stuff. No offense. But no. If it was more like Apple or Google then yes. Of course it makes sense. But not this. Sorry but I can't find more words to express myself right now.

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by Candy View Post
          Pretty much spot on. It just took me a while to figure out, where flatpak installs all the stuff.
          Yeah, reading the docs is hard man.

          This is not even close to what and how Apple or Google bundles their Apps for download.
          Mobile apps were written from scratch to target Android or iOS runtime, they don't need to rely on libraries much because their main runtime is the OS itself.

          If you want to sandbox an application or library that was developed for a PC you need to do some shenanigans.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
            If you want to sandbox an application or library that was developed for a PC you need to do some shenanigans.
            I do understand this and I don't want to sound rude or disrespectful. I want to speak out my respect for the people behind this project and I also understand the use case and the intention behind it.

            But not this!

            You need to understand, that there is not just the end user geek kind of person that sits behind his desktop or notebook and uses Linux for whatever their reasons are. There is also the industry side, where administrators need to "handle" all this. There is also the customer or project partners that are involved. You talk with these people, share ideas, bring it on paper, sign contracts, create some running demostrnations, do your systems integrations, write extra software, set everything up according the rules agreed. You need to set up an own QS build up by people from your own company and the people from the customers. They all test the stuff, sign the QS working sheet and deliver the final product to the customer.

            This stuff. With that mess that it creates by proving a defacto own new system. Is nothing that - at least speaking for us - we can sell to any of our customers without selling our souls. This is neither maintainable, handable, nor QS'able. We run customized (and stripped) RHEL virtual machines (ESX VMWare) that interperate with each other. We write and deliver real time tactical software that interoperates with these virtual machines. We do systems integrations and other services around the things we do.

            But this! In it's current state! As sad as it sounds! Is not possible to sell (verbally) to any customer.

            We also create own RPM packages for the stuff contracted. I know this can be tricky at times. Altering and rebuilding Fedora (used too) as well as RHEL packages can be though.

            But this! Is not going to happen. I don't know what to say anymore. Spoke more about our use cases than I wanted.
            During the discussion here, I really thought to give it a try (even out of hot air). But no. No offense! No.

            Time for bed! Eary up for job.

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Candy View Post
              Everyone feel free to test flatpak on your own. Enter the 3 lines I've posted on the first page of this comment section. Dive into the directory where flatpak installs all the stuff. Issue an ls command or two and make your own conclusions.
              You're being overly dramatic because you have no real way to counteract my arguments.

              I see nothing wrong with each application having its own folder that looks like a mini "root" folder with its own libs folder and stuff. Ever did a chroot? That's what each application or runtime looks like.

              To the contrary of you drama queen, I'm going to post the result of my stuff to show you're hyperventilating for no real reason.

              Code:
              /var/lib/flatpak/runtime/org.freedesktop.Platform/x86_64/1.6/370fe84f7bef7f95a573fb7b725985ebb4e8dfb45e4f47c328b7f3573c0f32d7/files> ls -l
              total 140
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root  8110  1 gen  1970 bin
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root    20  1 gen  1970 cache
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root   772  2 mag 23.35 etc
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root     0  1 gen  1970 games
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root    38  1 gen  1970 include
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 39826  1 gen  1970 lib
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root    40  1 gen  1970 lib64
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root   376  1 gen  1970 libexec
              -rw-r--r-- 2 root root 42619  1 gen  1970 manifest.base
              -rw-r--r-- 2 root root 90628  1 gen  1970 manifest.json
              lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root     3  2 mag 23.35 sbin -> bin
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root   806  1 gen  1970 share
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root     0  1 gen  1970 src
              drwxr-xr-x 1 root root    22  1 gen  1970 var
              Yes, OMG it has a fake root folder tree that mimics the main root folder because the applications in it are coded to expect to have that kind of structure in the OS!!!! We never ever did that before with simple stuff like chroot, then later with docker and LXC!!!! Call the cops!!!!! Scream!!!!

              This is impossible to QS and sell
              That's just an application running inside its own fake root tree. Ever heard of docker or LXC? They basically do the same thing, they take an application + its libraries + other stuff and throw it in a fake root folder tree that is then used to run the thing as if it was a "clean" OS dedicated to that application only.

              If it was more like Apple or Google then yes.
              That would require to change the application source code to expect stuff in different places, which isn't something most developers will do willingly for any serious project.

              Android applications were built from scratch to target that plarform so they don't have the legacy of expecting libraries and stuff in pre-determined paths.

              And are in general far simpler than most PC applications.

              Comment


              • #47
                No offense, but we have a different understanding of "clean", "maintainability", "customer requirements" and "QS". We have people to feed and these people come all with different skills from different architectures (most of them Windows). We create, deliver and hope no-one calls up because something blews up. Once delivered we continue with the next project or any contracted services. Day on, day off. Trying to stay in competition within this rough segment. There is no time for "experiments". It's easier to isolate a RHEL or Fedora installation via VMWare and throw it away in case it blows up, than dealing with this. It's also less expensive in time and costs.

                No offense! There may be a marked for this. And the marked will come for sure. But not in an - by my standards - imaginable close future. Clearly not with Fedora 30.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Candy View Post
                  You need to understand, that there is not just the end user geek kind of person that sits behind his desktop or notebook and uses Linux for whatever their reasons are. There is also the industry side, where administrators need to "handle" all this. There is also the customer or project partners that are involved. You talk with these people, share ideas, bring it on paper, sign contracts, create some running demostrnations, do your systems integrations, write extra software, set everything up according the rules agreed. You need to set up an own QS build up by people from your own company and the people from the customers. They all test the stuff, sign the QS working sheet and deliver the final product to the customer.
                  And if each application runs inside its own fake root folder with its own libs this is very easy to do as you only test and do QS for that, and not for the 10-20 different configurations you might find in systems actually deployed in the field.

                  This is already one of the main reasons docker and LXC containers are a thing.

                  This stuff. With that mess that it creates by proving a defacto own new system.
                  Yes, it is designed to be independent from the host system, that's the whole point.

                  Is nothing that - at least speaking for us - we can sell to any of our customers without selling our souls.
                  Dunno, I've worked with VMs and containers enough in the last 5-ish years and I think still I have some soul left somewhere in a drawer.

                  This is neither maintainable, handable, nor QS'able.
                  Repeating a simple statement does not convince people, you either provide some proof to back that up or admit you've nothing else to say and go home.

                  We run customized (and stripped) RHEL virtual machines (ESX VMWare) that interperate with each other. We write and deliver real time tactical software that interoperates with these virtual machines. We do systems integrations and other services around the things we do.
                  Yeah, and I work in Google's biggest datacenter (not). Really, you think anyone can realistically believe this? This is the Internet, everyone can claim to be anything.

                  But this! In it's current state! As sad as it sounds! Is not possible to sell (verbally) to any customer.
                  I don't see why. It's just one type of containerized application distribution system like any other.

                  For most production use it would be ok even as it is, servers don't need GNOME integration or themes or Portals, or any of the most annoying crap.

                  We also create own RPM packages for the stuff contracted. I know this can be tricky at times. Altering and rebuilding Fedora (used too) as well as RHEL packages can be though.
                  OMG, I do this as a hobby on github for a few scripts!!!! (actually make Debian packages, and I use the automated system provided by Debian)
                  And I contribute to OpenWrt development so I'm also used to "altering and rebuilding" a distro, where most things are completely automated!!!!

                  During the discussion here, I really thought to give it a try (even out of hot air).
                  As said above, I don't care if you use it or not. I just react when you post bullshit. Please stop posting bullshit so I can go to bed.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Candy View Post
                    No offense, but we have a different understanding of "clean", "maintainability", "customer requirements" and "QS". We have people to feed and these people come all with different skills from different architectures (most of them Windows). We create, deliver and hope no-one calls up because something blews up. Once delivered we continue with the next project or any contracted services. Day on, day off. Trying to stay in competition within this rough segment. There is no time for "experiments". It's easier to isolate a RHEL or Fedora installation via VMWare and throw it away in case it blows up, than dealing with this. It's also less expensive in time and costs.

                    No offense! There may be a marked for this. And the marked will come for sure. But not in an - by my standards - imaginable close future. Clearly not with Fedora 30.
                    Did you copy-paste some random corporate description from a pamphlet or something? Quit this crap, this isn't explaining anything.

                    Please explain why flatpack is worse or even different than industry-standards like say docker, which basically does the exact same thing (but is far less flexible and wastes more space imho), i.e. shipping an application in its own fake root directory tree, with its own dependencies (other applications/libraries in fake root trees).

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post

                      Yeah, Microsoft will love to get their hands on that juicy less-than-1% of the desktop market while it's getting raped on the embedded and server and HPC markets.


                      your butt. Is it hurting much?
                      Microsoft are making the Money on the Desktop, , linux will only make money on Servers, thats bout all.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X