Originally posted by Scali
View Post
Windows is just as changing as Linux. Because its either this - or death from exploits.
The only difference between the two is that linux does not keep older versions around, together with all expoitable code.
And versions, that are straight easy to abuse, are patched - with lots of win* software getting BROKEN.
Quote from WINE: Bug-per-bug compatibility.
Remember "DLL hell"? Ditto!
Unlike Windows, Linux does not use outdated versions, but only ONE version - that is CURRENT STABLE version.
When newer version is released, applications that depend on it are required to UPDATE. This is constant unavoidable process. Code always changes, it is a process.
If, somehow, the application can't receive updates to adopt to newer stack - its dead. The only reasonable way to treat such an application, is setting up dedicated virtual environiment.
This is why Linux is much less susceptible to exploits - it carries no cruft around.
The lastest *innovation* from Microsoft on this front, after Dll Hell, is called "install all libraries from all applications in separate container".
Apparently, such method had a bug around Vista SP1, which made this container grow past 40 GiB of space.
Common, next talk how wonderful registry is, and how Linux looses here
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
As in my example, Urban Terror 4.1 was released several years ago, and still runs without any changes ON ANY KERNEL.
However, if you take Python 2->3 migration - all your stuff will break on Windows.
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
And it works so good, that its better to use old software under WINE, than under "native environiment".
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
But I think recently developers agreed to change ABI only at certain periods and stabilize it. All for the sake of lazy (proprietary) programmers, who are too bothered to update their *software*.
However, given the fact that source-based distributions exist and are quite popular for many years, it should not be a problem to recompile even LibreOffice for target platform in under several seconds, when having access to cloud-based services. The only factor is price (since we are talking about lazy proprietary developers), which is just several cents more to keep cruft and exploits (and all AV-stuff) away.
Speaking on libraries, you should never ever distribute any libraries. You should ONLY link to them.
But if you are taking disgusting proprietary approach, at least keep 'em together and minimize ABI calls. This applies for ALL OSes.
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
Your assumption above is a direct result of applying broken windows methods - complete with bugs, version mess, DLL hells of varying degrees and similar joys.
If you are to claim this as an "advantage", thats a quite sarcastic one! Because your laziness results in problems inside user-land.
In Linux, you keep an eye on current library versions, and just release newer versions of your software when updates are needed. You don't care about "most common version" at all, or at least, till someone pays ya for "voluntary" port.
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
I have no idea of how garbaged Android now is, but if what you say is correct, its only a matter of time till Android becomes trashed beyond unusable.
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
There are only situations, where you will need to "reinvent the wheel" as you say - but more exactly: to remake the package
- you are not using existing package manager, but using your own, because the former does not suit your goals
- you are not using existing package for existing package manager, but are building your own package, because you have modified essential OS components, resulting in deviation from ABI/API requirements.
In short, you used your freedom to deviate from world's defaults.
But you don't want to sync the rest of the world to your new "realm"?
Who's going to do this job for you then?
If you don't want this, then don't deviate. Don't make your own distribution - stick to existing one.
Trying to have an ABI/API that fits all is essentially wanting a key, that fits all locks in this world. Pardon me, but:
a) you are taking away the freedom to advance locks
b) you are removing security based on different lock designs
c) you are killing innovation by prioritizing existing, outdated solution - instead of a ground breaking newer one
d) you are endangering the sole existence of lock-makers(,because securing locks by changing them, will unavoidably break compatibility with your key) but instead proposing bodyguards (sounds familiar, AV anyone?)
In short, you want to live a perfect life and that forever. Might I note that a) world is always rotating b) symbol of "death" means "change" in tarot c) you can't see whats beyond the horizon.
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
Android currently is following very accurate, but windows-like scheme of "stabile ABI", which will lead to its trashing with only exact time question open. And even this scheme does not guarantee " All developers don't have to create a new package for their Android apps everytime a new Android version is released." On contrary, if you are a programmer (and not a coder), you MUST babysit your software.
There are only three types of software:
- maintained, as in babysat
- broken
- on 5,25 floppy discs for historical reasons
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
OpenGL ES 2.0 stepped into shaders because mobile hardware became stronger - didn't it?
Also, note they have cut backwards compatibility to ES 1.0. Looks like they have learned from OpenGL3, and adopted Linux approach instead? That is, breaking stuff now, instead of making it decay here till the rest of the days.
Originally posted by Scali
View Post
Comment