Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus) • Hacker News Board

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#61

Post by stephenr » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:20 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #19

For anyone packaging software on Linux, this now means every major distro - Debian, RHEL/CentOS, Arch and now Ubuntu - supports .service files. No need for bash scripts, custom watchdog and daemonise tools, etc.

> No need for bash scripts

Friends don't let friends write shell scripts targeting bash.

For context: Bash is not available|installed everywhere, and has some inter-version weirdness.

Write clean, posix-compliant shell scripts (i.e. target /bin/sh commonly referred to as bourne shell) and you're in a much better position.

On Debian your script will be run by Dash, on OS X it will be run by Bash, on Ubuntu or RedHat it could be different again, but the point is, they are specifically running in POSIX mode, so that you get reliable, reproducible results across systems and even across Bash versions.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#62

Post by mayhew » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

jkot wrote: post #46

Anyone using Kubuntu 16.04? I am thinking about moving to Fedora.

If you're interested in KDE on Fedora 23, I haven't tried it but I've seen this [1] which may persuade you to find another distro for KDE.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2015-October/0...

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#63

Post by falcolas » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:21 PM UTC

tomswartz07 wrote: post #15

knocte wrote: post #4

I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Now, I would love to know, if I'm a maintainer of Foo (and you can get it today via `apt-get install foo`), how will I be able to start packaging using snap rather than relying on deb packages that come from debian? I'd love any feedback, cheers!

Just a side note, as well: `apt-get` is depreciated, they've moved to just plain `apt` `apt install foo`

Last time I tried to use just apt, its help pages warned that it was experimental, and there was still basic functionality which was either not implemented, or implemented differently from the regular apt-* tools.

I'd very much prefer to standardize on plain apt, but it doesn't seem ready yet.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#64

Post by yrro » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:23 PM UTC

ac wrote: post #43

nailer wrote: post #19

For anyone packaging software on Linux, this now means every major distro - Debian, RHEL/CentOS, Arch and now Ubuntu - supports .service files. No need for bash scripts, custom watchdog and daemonise tools, etc.

Could you, please, explain what .service files are and how they eliminate the need for bash scripts etc? Couldn't find anything in search results.

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd-for-admins-3.html

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#65

Post by criddell » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:28 PM UTC

kraftman wrote: post #29

Been using 16.04 on my XPS 13 for a week or so now, it finally supports nearly everything (bluetooth is a couple of extra commands) out of the box, and I've not had any issues so far.

Are you happy with battery life? For laptops, I've always stuck with Apple machines but in my experience even Windows uses less power than Linux.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#66

Post by michaelmior » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:30 PM UTC

For anyone like myself who isn't a big fan of the Unity interface, check out Ubuntu MATE[0]. The MATE desktop environment is very similar to pre-Unity Ubuntu. It seems like the final 16.04 release hasn't landed yet but I'm sure it will later today. Ubuntu MATE is also one of the derivative distros that has been granted LTS status by Canonical.

[0] https://ubuntu-mate.org/

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#67

Post by criddell » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:32 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #25

knocte wrote: post #4

I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Now, I would love to know, if I'm a maintainer of Foo (and you can get it today via `apt-get install foo`), how will I be able to start packaging using snap rather than relying on deb packages that come from debian? I'd love any feedback, cheers!

> I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Bleargh. More container bullshit, now with even less control over it by end users. Now each tiny library update (think OpenSSL security fixes) will pull hundreds of "snaps" instead of a single package… assuming the developers even realize they have to rebuild their snaps.

> Now each tiny library update (think OpenSSL security fixes) will pull hundreds of "snaps"

Do you think that's worse than the alternative where each tiny (shared) library update potentially breaks hundreds of programs?

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#68

Post by criddell » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:35 PM UTC

Scarblac wrote: post #16

tard wrote: post #3

what are they going to do when they run out of letters in the alphabet?

Unicode is growing fast enough.

I love that answer. Switch to a different language and alphabet!

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#69

Post by creshal » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #67

creshal wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Bleargh. More container bullshit, now with even less control over it by end users. Now each tiny library update (think OpenSSL security fixes) will pull hundreds of "snaps" instead of a single package… assuming the developers even realize they have to rebuild their snaps.

> Now each tiny library update (think OpenSSL security fixes) will pull hundreds of "snaps" Do you think that's worse than the alternative where each tiny (shared) library update potentially breaks hundreds of programs?

ABI breaks from security patches for stable releases, especially of Linux distributions, happen how often?

In comparison, outdated npm/gem/pip/hipster-package-manager-of-the-week or docker installations happen how often?

With the former, the burden of updating and testing lies with a small handful of distribution maintainers. With the latter, every single developer has to worry about deployment and maintenance.

Re: Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial Xerus)

#70

Post by majewsky » Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 1:36 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #25

knocte wrote: post #4

I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Now, I would love to know, if I'm a maintainer of Foo (and you can get it today via `apt-get install foo`), how will I be able to start packaging using snap rather than relying on deb packages that come from debian? I'd love any feedback, cheers!

> I love the part about simplifying packaging via 'snap'. Bleargh. More container bullshit, now with even less control over it by end users. Now each tiny library update (think OpenSSL security fixes) will pull hundreds of "snaps" instead of a single package… assuming the developers even realize they have to rebuild their snaps.

A hundred times this. When some library upgrade happened to break stuff on my system, I could roll it back selectively, while still getting the updates for everything else (as long as it does not strictly depend on this new library version). That's gone now.

Good thing I abandoned Ubuntu a long time ago.