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.
Thread beginning with comment 403719
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Ugh
by nt_jerkface on Tue 12th Jan 2010 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Ugh"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26


* You can't expect application developers to build dozens of packages for every single distro out there. They simply don't have the time nor the motivation. So instead they should be concentrating on making the application itself as complete as possible


Well of course I am not suggesting that application developers build for every distro. There should be a move away from the shared library system or at least a standard library base that distros follow.


* FOSS software doesn't just run on Linux. There's *BSDs, OpenSolaris and even a few non-*nix OSs out there that also run FOSS software.

It also runs on Windows and OSX and yet in those cases only needs to be built once and the binary will work for the life of the OS.


The difference between Windows and Linux is windows does not provide any kind of package downstream - so MS are effectively washing their hands of any responsibility and expecting:

* the developers to build their own deployment packages (thankfully there's numerous tools out there to assist)

This isn't even a legitimate complaint given how easy the deployment wizards have become.


* and the users to have enough knowledge to differentiate between safe packages and malware.

That is a problem that doesn't require the shared library system to solve. You can have a safe repository of any type.


Sometimes the Windows model works - sometimes it doesn't. eg

It's also the model that OSX uses and it has far fewer headaches than ye old shared library system. Applications still break in Linux from library updates which typically requires command line meandering to fix . That's unacceptable for the general public.


So as much a waste of man-hours as you might perceive it - I'd always prefer the OS maintainers to control the package deployment any day (and just so long as I have the option to override their catalogue should the rare occasion occur that I need to)

The benefits from the shared library system such as a safe repository and application index can easily be added to an independent library system along with significant productivity gains.

But don't worry most people in Linux land are like you and defend ye old shared system that was designed to save hard drive space in an era when gigabyte drives didn't exist.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Ugh
by mesomaan on Tue 12th Jan 2010 16:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Ugh"
mesomaan Member since:
2006-01-04

They seem like a competent team but good lord why do all these people want to work on building packages for yet another general purpose distro? My god so boring.


But don't worry most people in Linux land are like you and defend ye old shared system that was designed to save hard drive space in an era when gigabyte drives didn't exist.


Arch linux isn't really just a general purpose linux. It's base install is very compact and runs pretty well as an embedded system. Shared libraries allow different people in different locations to develop the software. This is mandatory for small developers without an army of programmers. Many of us don't even consider large gigabyte drives useable and only use little flash drives for the system.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Ugh
by nt_jerkface on Tue 12th Jan 2010 19:56 in reply to "RE[3]: Ugh"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Arch linux isn't really just a general purpose linux. It's base install is very compact and runs pretty well as an embedded system.

I could say the same thing about Slackware.


Shared libraries allow different people in different locations to develop the software.

The shared library system isn't needed to allow that.

Many of us don't even consider large gigabyte drives useable and only use little flash drives for the system.

Oh give me a break, even 8 gig flash drives are cheap these days which is plenty of space.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Ugh
by Laurence on Tue 12th Jan 2010 17:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Ugh"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


Well of course I am not suggesting that application developers build for every distro. There should be a move away from the shared library system or at least a standard library base that distros follow.

But then you lose the whole point of different distros.

Different developers and users prefer a different model of package deployment. Hense the reason ArchLinux exists in the first place (I trust you read the interview?)


"* FOSS software doesn't just run on Linux. There's *BSDs, OpenSolaris and even a few non-*nix OSs out there that also run FOSS software.

It also runs on Windows and OSX and yet in those cases only needs to be built once and the binary will work for the life of the OS.
"
You can distribute Linux binaries too - so in that respect, Linux isn't much different to Windows.
It's just there's usually little point in distributing stand alone binaries as package repositories do all the leg work for you.


"
* and the users to have enough knowledge to differentiate between safe packages and malware.


That is a problem that doesn't require the shared library system to solve. You can have a safe repository of any type.
"
That makes little sense. A repository /IS/ a shared library system.
Plus I thought you were arguing that you don't need safe repositories....


"Sometimes the Windows model works - sometimes it doesn't. eg


It's also the model that OSX uses and it has far fewer headaches than ye old shared library system. Applications still break in Linux from library updates which typically requires command line meandering to fix . That's unacceptable for the general public.
"
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).

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 - it's just many experts advice users to dip into it as it's quicker and easier to list a number of commands to run than take screenshots of the GUIs that need to be used.
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.


The benefits from the shared library system such as a safe repository and application index can easily be added to an independent library system along with significant productivity gains.

So what you're suggesting is to replace one software repository with another!?
Plus you're still missing the point that sometimes packages need to be tailored specifically to that distro.


But don't worry most people in Linux land are like you and defend ye old shared system that was designed to save hard drive space in an era when gigabyte drives didn't exist.

Software repositories have nothing to do with disk space savings!
Do you even know how they work? Have you actually ever used a package manager?

They exist to centralise applications, automate deployment and ease system administration.
ArchLinux could use as much diskspace as Windows if you wanted it to. It's just many ArchLinux users don't see the point in installing surplus applications that they're never going to use.


I don't want to get into a platform war (you like what you like and I like what I do) - but please at least understand how a system works before attempting to draw comparisons.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Ugh
by nt_jerkface on Tue 12th Jan 2010 18:57 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