Flatpak Officially Announced For "Next Generation Linux Applications"

[starshipeleven]

I think it was supposed to be proof that no unexpected LAN activity was occurring on the connection, i.e. the logs were from the 4G.
I have a feeling there's a language barrier here though.

No, he genuinely believes that the logs he posted were somehow related to someone attacking his router from the WAN.

As unixfan2001 said, debianxfce has the IT literacy of a goat, plenty of proofs of that in previous posts of his.

[Mystro256]

No, he genuinely believes that the logs he posted were somehow related to someone attacking his router from the WAN.

As unixfan2001 said, debianxfce has the IT literacy of a goat, plenty of proofs of that in previous posts of his.

Lol are you serious? Oh wow, I guess than explains a lot.

[starshipeleven]

Lol are you serious? Oh wow, I guess than explains a lot.

The only other rational explanation would be that he is a guy that takes his trolling duty very seriously.

[computerquip]

Umm... deciding which LIBRARY you use in your application is completely different than having two sets of code for each library so you can target multiple distributions, which is what you said. Kodi never used libav. It was always an ffmpeg project. Nor did they ever have a libav version of Kodi and an ffmpeg version. Kodi didn't even use system-installed libraries (nor did mplayer2), though XBMC did once make that option available. mplayer2, once they went to libav, was never again tied to ffmpeg, and libav was built into the package. The guy who maintained mplayer2 never had anything to do with ffmpeg once it was converted over to libav. Kodi and mplayer2 are cross-platform projects that bundle what they need right into their own packages. Exactly as Mez' said before you threatened to "punch him in the throat".

You seem to be conflating "having to choose between forks of a similar library" to being the same thing as needing these "flatpak" packages to target multiple Linux distributions.

What I responded to was your idiotic and uninformative response to this quote:

They instead had to have two branches of code to support both or simply not support some distributions that didn't support one or the other.

You seem to have missed half my fucking statement. e.g. Kodi didn't support libav so they didn't support Debian out of the box since Debian would not package ffmpeg.

[johnc]

What I responded to was your idiotic and uninformative response to this quote:

You seem to have missed half my fucking statement. e.g. Kodi didn't support libav so they didn't support Debian out of the box since Debian would not package ffmpeg.

I understand what you said, and you're wrong. For a while Ubuntu did not have ffmpeg available either. They were a libav distribution like Debian. But sure as water is wet, XBMC / Kodi had an official PPA for distributing their application for Ubuntu. And it worked flawlessly. Hell, they even had the XBMCbuntu distribution themselves.

Because ffmpeg was not and never was dynamically linked from the system. It was statically linked into the binary and distributed as part of the binary, which is what non-retarded developers do when the circumstances warrant.

[starshipeleven]

I understand what you said, and you're wrong. For a while Ubuntu did not have ffmpeg available either. They were a libav distribution like Debian. But sure as water is wet, XBMC / Kodi had an official PPA for distributing their application for Ubuntu. And it worked flawlessly. Hell, they even had the XBMCbuntu distribution themselves.

Because ffmpeg was not and never was dynamically linked from the system. It was statically linked into the binary and distributed as part of the binary, which is what non-retarded developers do when the circumstances warrant.

No wait a sec. You went from "bundled in the package" which is a thing, to "it's staticallly linked" which is another thing.

I mean, if it was a good idea to just statically-link EVERYTHING wtf are they not statically linking stuff in closed-source applications and I still need to make weird voodoo hacks to get shit applications released for ubuntu <ancient version> to work at all in Debian <current version>.

[DerCaveman]

wtf are they not statically linking stuff in closed-source applications

I would say incompatible licenses.

[starshipeleven]

I would say incompatible licenses.

Good point. Silly me. The above still applies to opensource applications though, like Kodi we were talking about.

[johnc]

No wait a sec. You went from "bundled in the package" which is a thing, to "it's staticallly linked" which is another thing.

I mean, if it was a good idea to just statically-link EVERYTHING wtf are they not statically linking stuff in closed-source applications and I still need to make weird voodoo hacks to get shit applications released for ubuntu <ancient version> to work at all in Debian <current version>.

For mplayer2 and Kodi the decoding libraries (libav and ffmpeg, respectively) are statically linked.

What libraries an application decides to statically link or dynamically link really depends on the circumstances. It's the same deal on Windows. Something like ffmpeg has a lot of churn and a not very stable API, and the license allows it to be statically linked. For libraries that can't be statically linked, you can just include them in your distributable, like Doom3 does with libgcc and libstdc++.

[unixfan2001]

We still miss someone ranting about GPL or saying how better a permissive license is.

Friendly fire?

I have no problem with the GPL per se.
What I have a problem with are its rabid proponents and the fact that it appears to be written in Legal English (and the fact that using pieces of GPLd software requires me to include something steeped in legalese with my software).

If I wanted to include a long winded EULA with my software, I'd join Apple or Microsoft.

EDIT: That being said, if someone were to write a new GPL (let's call it GPL-NEXT) that condensed the whole license down to the average length of a permissive license (no more than 30 lines), the FSF was to elect a more level headed leadership (I do care about who represents my interests and Stallman is not the kind of person I trust to do that) and we started calling it Open Software (which, in my book, is not only what it is but is also far more marketable than both "Free Software" -- to the average layperson that sounds like an inferior product people throw at you because they couldn't possibly sell it -- and "Open Source" -- sounds like something geeks and nerds do in their basements), I'd be the first person to adopt that new model.

As a bonus, Markdown or LaTex should be chosen as the default text format. Last I checked software engineers weren't barbarians, so why use barbaric txt?