Originally posted by pabloski
View Post
helloSystem Publishes New Experimental Build Based On FreeBSD 14.0
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by pabloski View PostAppImage is marvelous.
Sadly money speaks louder and we are chained to Flatpak and Snaps.
Originally posted by pabloski View Postwhere libraries inside the PBIs were mapped ( trough hard or soft links ) into the usual Unix directories, so it was possible to share them to a certain degree.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Alexmitter View PostHey, its basically like Flatpak that does basically exactly that. Just that it happens inside a fakeroot because ya know sandboxing.
if you create two bundles with 90% of the resources being the same, it will happily open both bundles, with the obvious redundancy
so no, I am not whining, I know how these things work and I see no one has solved the biggest problem yet
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by dragon321 View Post
Neither Red Hat or Canonical are paying to use Flatpak and Snap instead of AppImage. AppImage is indeed very convenient but it replicates one of the biggest Windows issue - library hell when every application has their own copy of same library.
As for dependency hell, Flatpak and Snap don't solve it. They just "force" you to use bundles, that are a bunch of libraries ( specific versions ) that must be present in order to constitute the base environment for the program to run. But heck, this is something we could have done in the base Linux systems, by enforcing that specific dependencies must be present. And obviously by using symboling versioning, like glibc does for example. At least this way you can have strong retrocompatibility guarantees.
Systems like Flatpak and Snap are just promoting the same kind of bloating containers are. The concept is the same as of AppImage, "pack everything the program needs in the same bundle". But at the extreme this is just what static linking is all about. This is the reason why Go's architects decided to not implement dynamic linking at the beginning.
If you want to be super flexible in the choice of dependencies, you will get fragmentation. Microsoft tried to solve it and got a massive dependency hell. Others too. And others just admitted it is impossible and did go the "bundle" route ( Apple is famous in this sense ).
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by dragon321 View Post
Neither Red Hat or Canonical are paying to use Flatpak and Snap instead of AppImage.
Agree with everything else though.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Volta View Post
Shit license shit outcome. Not to mention mac os is trash.
So….what have you done lately to help FreeBSD or say Linux break the 4 trillion dollar mark ?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Myownfriend View Post
Even if it were a thing on BSD, HelloSystem wouldn't use it because the guy that makes it clueless about it. He has a long running thread encouraging people to boycott Wayland. Among his reasons?
That Qt needs a Wayland plugin to support Wayland...
And that OBS (whose Github he was banned from) can't capture under Wayland without "workarounds"... like pipewire.
He also believes that Wayland can't replace X11 unless it's designed in a way where X11 applications can become Wayland applications without any changes at all.
Got it. Thanks
Comment
-
Comment