Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Mon 11th Jan 2010 15:57 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews A few weeks ago, we asked for the OSNews community to help with some questions we were going to ask Aaron Griffin from the Arch Linux team, and the response was glorious and somewhat phenomenal. We added those questions to our own and sent them on over, and then we were surprised by receiving not only Aaron Griffin's responses but answers from various individuals from the team.
Permalink for comment 403745
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Ugh
by nt_jerkface on Tue 12th Jan 2010 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ugh"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26


But then you lose the whole point of different distros.


I said at least provide a standard base that distros follow. Anyways most of the distros are completely pointless. It makes more sense to have an OS that is modular in design that can modified for a variety of purposes while maintaining binary compatibility.


You can distribute Linux binaries too - so in that respect, Linux isn't much different to Windows.

You're being disingenuous. Linux is much different to Windows AND OSX in that regard since you can't build a single GUI executable and expect it to to work across all distros for a reasonable amount of time. The Linux ecosystem is designed with the assumption that user software is open source. If the goal is adoption by the public then it doesn't make sense to design the system completely around open source.

The binary compatibility across Linux distros that exists is for small command line programs, and even then it is limited since the distros can't even agree on basics like where user programs and settings should be stored.

That makes little sense. A repository /IS/ a shared library system.

In the Linux sense of the word. By general definition a repository is storage system. You can store safe executables for the user to download. There is no reason why this must be a feature exclusive to shared library systems.


Now your talking about a completely different topics.
(plus repositories / package managers SOLVE dependancies issues which often break systems rather than causing them as you suggest).

No I'm not, it's all a part of the same problematic software distribution system. Package managers attempt to resolve dependencies but applications still get broken by updates.

Here's the genius shared library system at work:
Skype broken after KDE update:
http://fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=233354


The command line dependancy has nothing to do software repositries what-so-ever!! (and more importantly, 99% of the time you don't need to touch the command line -

I said that going to the command line is typically needed to fix dependency breaks.

Here's an example:
http://itechlog.com/linux/2008/12/18/fix-broken-package-ubuntu/


Most linux distros give you the CHOICE of using a command line or a GUI. You DONT have to use the command line, but sometimes it's just easier to explain on a forum than trying to navigate someone around various windows and menus.


Explain how the last example problem could have been fixed with the GUI.


So what you're suggesting is to replace one software repository with another!?

One that makes more sense.


Plus you're still missing the point that sometimes packages need to be tailored specifically to that distro.

I'm missing the point even though I already went over this? How long did you spend reading my response? 10 seconds?

The tailoring wouldn't be needed if the distros had a common library base and directory structure.

There are other options including a standard common language interface, binary compatibility layer or even a VM solution. But shutting your brain off and defending the status quo is probably the worst option.


Software repositories have nothing to do with disk space savings!

The shared library system was designed in a completely different era when saving hard drive space was a priority. That is no longer an issue and now the remaining benefits can be adopted within an independent system where applications can have their own libraries that can't be broken by a system update.

Trying reading my response more carefully next time instead of just skimming it and providing a knee-jerk response. It isn't a Windows vs Linux issue. It's a software engineering issue. Apple's engineers decided to ditch the shared library system so maybe you should at least question as to why.

Edited 2010-01-12 19:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2