Originally posted by anda_skoa
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lennart Poettering Talks Up His New Linux Vision That Involves Btrfs
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostThere are dozens of ISV's who don't provide installers and who have plenty of customers. Again, this is a basic denial of the fact that there are real problems and you have provided no good solutions. Hint: Bundling is not a good solution for everyone.
And in the other thread (on systemd) did I already explain to someone where /sbin and /usr/sbin originally came from. These used to hold static binaries, until distros started with the fixed idea of making absolutely everything dynamic apparently. The static versions of administrative commands were there intentionally and to be used in cases where libraries were broken or /lib could not be mounted. It even improves security, when not every command requires a shared libc. If you look at Windows might you know that DLLs are commonly used by malware to hook into software.
By making every possible piece of software a shared library have distros brought it onto themselves. This was clearly a bad idea and now they are drowning in dependencies. Why did nobody ever seek a reasonable balance between shared and static linking? Was everyone mesmerised by the thought of creating the largest pile of dependencies ever possible? I guess so ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostThere are dozens of ISV's who don't provide installers and who have plenty of customers. Again, this is a basic denial of the fact that there are real problems and you have provided no good solutions. Hint: Bundling is not a good solution for everyone.
I am just saying that I am extremely annoyed by the false claim that one absolutely has to do package manager packages to distribute software to Linux customers.
If an ISV likes installers, e.g. because they use them on other platforms (quite likely on Windows for example), then they can very well use the same technique on Linux also.
Whining about Linux packages is like whining that app stores require different packaging.
Yes they do, but unlike some locked down mobile platforms, the package mechanism is just one of many options.
If an ISV has experience with installers, then bringing up packaging as a deterrent for Linux support is an excuse, a very lame one, and not a valid reason.
I will challenge that excuse whenever I encounter it, regardless of who perpetrates it
Cheers,
_
Comment
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostBy making every possible piece of software a shared library have distros brought it onto themselves. This was clearly a bad idea and now they are drowning in dependencies. Why did nobody ever seek a reasonable balance between shared and static linking? Was everyone mesmerised by the thought of creating the largest pile of dependencies ever possible? I guess so ...
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostThe emphasis on shared libraries were brought on by the many man months it took to fix a security issue in zlib when static or bundling were more common.
Why did it take so much effort to fix the hole? Was it not as simple as recompiling the distribution and to release the affected packages after the bug got fixed?
Comment
-
Originally posted by sdack View PostWhy did it take so much effort to fix the hole? Was it not as simple as recompiling the distribution and to release the affected packages after the bug got fixed?
Comment
-
sand vs lube
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!
-- p
Comment
Comment