Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RemixOS – Android for the desktop

jide.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 197 posts

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#91

Post by threatofrain »

nextos wrote: post #15

As a hardcore Linux user, I'm really torn about Android. On the one hand, it has created a nice software ecosystem by pushing a consistent set of APIs. Linux desktop applications were never remarkable except for a few ones. I think fragmentation into a myriad of frameworks led to this. The only 2 X11 applications I use are firefox and zathura. On the other hand, too much stuff has been redone in Android. It's too for…

I did a quick Google but Zathura is a popular name. Do you mean Zathura the document viewer? Just asking because I've been looking for one.

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#92

Post by emidln »

lqdc13 wrote: post #87
tobbyb wrote: post #76

I think the potential for the Android desktop is huge, and can threaten Intel in a serious way. Look at the Amazon Fire TV equipped with a Mediatek 64 bit quad core A72 + A53 SoC. The same SoC is scheduled to be in Chromebooks shortly. This tiny 4 inch by 1 inch box can play 4k at 30fps, provide super fast internet browsing, Facebook, Youtube, Office apps, video conferencing and play Android 3D titles well. And it co…

Why would grandma want a desktop instead of a chromebook? And why would a poweruser or a gamer want an underpowered PC? This might be good for intermediate/casual/netbook users though or those who do computing on some remote machine.

I'd prefer Android on my Chromebook Pixel (assuming for a second that I didn't just install Arch Linux on it) instead of having Chrome OS. I'd take a working Skype + Browser over just a Browser. There aren't any webapps that I really use that don't have a comparable in quality or better app. Assuming multi-window works, this would actually just be ChromeOS++ for me.

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#93

Post by digi_owl »

yohui wrote: post #83
tagrun wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would argue for the opposite: One problem with linux is that you can't run untrusted software without it getting the same access as the user. That's exactly what the appification is. > I see package managers as a source of some problems of linux: Package maintainers are a unneeded middleman between the writers of the software and you, package managers interact with the whole system, scattering files around the wh…

> Here's a very recent example of this system at work: Chromium sneaks a binary blob which secretly listens to your microphone and sends data to Google: https://lwn.net/Articles/648392/ Downloading a binary blob in the first place was the real issue. However, the voice recognition module wasn't actually used unless you opted into the "Ok Google" hotword feature. Getting back on topic, Android handles similar problems…

The Android 6 changes are a smokescreen.

You can't use it to deny specific permissions, only groups of them. If an all wants to write something your contacts, you also have to allow it to read them. This even though the core permissions system allows that level of granularity.

also, network access is deemed safe (by Google) and is thus in a group of permissions the user has no control over.

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#94

Post by digi_owl »

legulere wrote: post #23
nextos wrote: post #15

As a hardcore Linux user, I'm really torn about Android. On the one hand, it has created a nice software ecosystem by pushing a consistent set of APIs. Linux desktop applications were never remarkable except for a few ones. I think fragmentation into a myriad of frameworks led to this. The only 2 X11 applications I use are firefox and zathura. On the other hand, too much stuff has been redone in Android. It's too for…

> I would prefer less app-ification, more package management. I would argue for the opposite: One problem with linux is that you can't run untrusted software without it getting the same access as the user. That's exactly what the appification is. I see package managers as a source of some problems of linux: Package maintainers are a unneeded middleman between the writers of the software and you, package managers inte…

su "limited account" -c "questionable binary"?

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#96

Post by frik »

nextos wrote: post #15

As a hardcore Linux user, I'm really torn about Android. On the one hand, it has created a nice software ecosystem by pushing a consistent set of APIs. Linux desktop applications were never remarkable except for a few ones. I think fragmentation into a myriad of frameworks led to this. The only 2 X11 applications I use are firefox and zathura. On the other hand, too much stuff has been redone in Android. It's too for…

Isn't RemixOS required to release their source code?

It's based on open source Android (incl GNU GPL parts) and yet doesn't publish the code. They shrug off such questions in their official forum.

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#97

Post by digi_owl »

marssaxman wrote: post #28
legulere wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would prefer less app-ification, more package management. I would argue for the opposite: One problem with linux is that you can't run untrusted software without it getting the same access as the user. That's exactly what the appification is. I see package managers as a source of some problems of linux: Package maintainers are a unneeded middleman between the writers of the software and you, package managers inte…

I've never liked the traditional unix way of managing a filesystem either; GoboLinux had the right idea.

Well for the most part because it uses what unix offers rather than ignoring it.

The basic problem with most package managers is that they ignore the soname mechanism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soname

This allows multiple versions of a lib to live side by side, while giving the binaries the version(s) they want.

package managers ignore this, and instead is hung up on getting that one "true" version everywhere. This because their basic design only allow one version pr package name. Thus you can't have ABC 1.0 and 1.1 installed at the same time. Instead you have to mangle ABC into something like ABC1 to allow 1.1 to install without removing 1.0 in the process.

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#98

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

derefr wrote: post #69
morganvachon wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see package managers as a source of some problems of linux: Package maintainers are a unneeded middleman between the writers of the software and you, package managers interact with the whole system, scattering files around the whole filesystem... It sounds like you'd enjoy Slackware's approach to package management. Zero dependency resolution, packages are built from the source tarball with little or no patching…

The parent is advocating for the Slackware approach—just take whatever's in the upstreams and slam it together—but installed into a container (so all that slamming doesn't conflict with anything), and distributed as a container image. This is effectively the 'modern Linux app philosophy', as supported by systemd et al. It's similar in concept to app bundles, but it also assumes automatic sandboxing. It's great for ga…

GNU Stow gives shell users a great way to build contained applications that can be patched into the traditional filesystem through symlinks, avoiding the uncontrollable spew of files everywhere.

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#99

Post by digi_owl »

nextos wrote: post #24
Someone1234 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot help but wonder if "apps" aren't going to eventually replace package managers. That's certainly what Docker-like containers try to do. It might sound crazy when you consider some of the services typically installed with a package manager but ultimately there's no reason why an "app" cannot run in root, many root packages aren't actually installing drivers, they're only root for historical reasons (e.g. being…

I'm certain containers will end up replacing package managers. This idea is being pushed by the systemd guys. I think its a step backwards, as you loose tight control over dependencies. E.g., in case of a security issue, one cannot easily patch all containers if they are blackboxes. IMHO, the right tool for this is an improved package manager such as Nix or Guix (which incidentally also support containers in their ow…

That seems like yet another case of freedesktop/gnome/fedora finding another hammer and applying it to all the "nails".

Containers fix a problem that unix has solved for decades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soname

The problem is the package managers used by most distros getting hung up on there only being a single version number of each package name installed at any one time.

Sort that out, like say how Gobolinux does it, and you do not need containers.

But containers is all the rage on the web these days, so ipso facto is also must be all the rage for desktop Linux.

Back before Gnome and Freedesktop, desktop Linux was a kernel up project. But more and more these days however it is a web down.

Meaning that web people get interested in using the L in LAMP on their desktops, start looking into Gnome/KDE, then get involved in Freedesktop plumbing, and all the while bring their web-isms ("move fast and break stuff" being the most annoying) with them further down the stack.

Re: RemixOS – Android for the desktop

#100

Post by detaro »

digi_owl wrote: post #94
legulere wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would prefer less app-ification, more package management. I would argue for the opposite: One problem with linux is that you can't run untrusted software without it getting the same access as the user. That's exactly what the appification is. I see package managers as a source of some problems of linux: Package maintainers are a unneeded middleman between the writers of the software and you, package managers inte…

su "limited account" -c "questionable binary"?

A large value of app sandboxes are easy but controlled ways to allow exceptions. E.g.: an app can ask the sandbox for file access, the sandbox then prompts the user to select a file and only that file is then exposed to the app.

Or even giving global access to functionality from a manifest file, without having to set up a restricted user/environment manually. (I wouldn't know without looking it up how to set up a linux user account that can't talk to the network. Or even better, only can talk to some part of the network.)

Post reply on HN