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

Thank you, Ubuntu

psung.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 133 posts

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#81

Post by IgorPartola »

Gormo wrote: post #78
dkarl wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't just solve dependencies they encourage dependencies This is a good thing. Developers' attitude toward dependencies gets very lax when it's too much work to declare them or too much work for the user to satisfy them. Then you get into situations where you install a piece of software and 90% of the functionality is broken, because the developer was "considerate" enough not to "force" a bunch of dependencies…

How about statically-linked builds? Hard drives and memory are cheap compared to the annoyances of having to manage dependencies on the user's system. Package management is a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

What do you propose instead? So far package management solves these problems for me:

  1. Upgrading the entire OS at once.
  2. Easy updates.
  3. Almost never having any issues with incompatible software. When issues arise I can easily roll things back or wait until they are fixed.
  4. Never having to hunt for software on the web.
  5. Ability to script server/workstation deploys.
  6. Never having to spend more than 5 minutes on maintaining my workstation.
That last point is huge. How long would it take you to update Java, Flash Player, Adobe Reader, IE and install SP# on Windows?

If there is an alternative way of approaching it I'd be very happy, since it can only be an improvement upon already stellar apt/yum/BSD ports, etc.

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#82

Post by grease »

borisk wrote: post #13
grease wrote: post #4

I started using Ubuntu on my desktop when I started developing for the web and because my web-server ran ubuntu. Love the fact that I can have a server-like OS on my desktop, that also does pretty much does everything that windows and macs do

Both Windows and Mac OS X have server versions, that can easily be installed on desktops.

Seriously? Would you run a web-app on a Mac or Windows server?

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#83

Post by Gormo »

IgorPartola wrote: post #81
Gormo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about statically-linked builds? Hard drives and memory are cheap compared to the annoyances of having to manage dependencies on the user's system. Package management is a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

What do you propose instead? So far package management solves these problems for me: 1. Upgrading the entire OS at once. 2. Easy updates. 3. Almost never having any issues with incompatible software. When issues arise I can easily roll things back or wait until they are fixed. 4. Never having to hunt for software on the web. 5. Ability to script server/workstation deploys. 6. Never having to spend more than 5 minutes…

I'm only speaking to the dependency-resolution function that makes package management necessary on certain OSes. Public application repositories sharing a standard interface still have some nice features.

But if the applications are all statically-linked, I don't have to worry about dependency conflicts, and some things are a lot simpler, e.g. copying the binaries off to a flash drive to take them to another system, or running two different versions of the same software simultaneously.

On Windows, I don't usually even run installers anymotre; I extract the installers, collect all of the dlls into the application directory, and compress everything with UPX. Once the program is running out of a self-contained directory, I can run it off a thumbdrive, copy it to my Dropbox, etc. Plus I have the option of not updating software when I prefer not to.

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#84

Post by Gormo »

koenigdavidmj wrote: post #80
Gormo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about statically-linked builds? Hard drives and memory are cheap compared to the annoyances of having to manage dependencies on the user's system. Package management is a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.

Then some central library has a security hole and half your system has to get updated, instead of just one thing. Also, you might like http://sta.li/ ;)

True enough, if the security hole is in a library that half of the software on my system is using. But most applications have fairly frequent update cycles for their own codebase anyway, and it's just as likely that an update to a central dynamically-linked library might introduce a new security hole that instantly compromises half of my system at once.

Thanks for the link to sta.li, I'll check it out. What I'd really like to see is a Linux distro that managed applications the way OSX does - every program is contained in its own directory.

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#85

Post by fauigerzigerk »

pronoiac wrote: post #71
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The package manager concept is actually what I hate most about Linux systems and Ubuntu's strategy to not let you upgrade some packages without upgrading the OS itself is insane. Packages tend to thrust some completely idiosyncratic configuration scheme down my throat that is documented nowhere and that creates conflicts of its own. They don't just solve dependencies they encourage dependencies because they are suppo…

Ubuntu's strategy to not let you upgrade some packages without upgrading the OS itself is insane. You can; it's called "pinning:" https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PinningHowto If I want Python 2 and 3 on the same system I can't have a package manager tell me that's not supposed to be when I know full well that it's no problem. Let me check; here on Jaunty I can separately install python2.4, python2.5, python2.6, pyt…

I guess what I'm "doing wrong" is to expect sensible out of the box behaviour. I'm fully aware that I can make it do whatever I want to if I put enough work into it. That holds for almost everything in life. What's limited in my life, though, is time.

Installing Python 3 alongside the old version didn't work for a long time after Python 3 came out. If it works now, that's fine. I compiled my own Python 3 a long time before it finally appeared in my system's package manager.

[Edit] And one more thing. I'm not a sysadmin and my interest in system configuration and change management is very limited. But I've been using Linux for a very long time, so if I'm still doing it wrong then many people will do be doing it wrong and that means there's something wrong with the way it works.

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#87

Post by IgorPartola »

Gormo wrote: post #83
IgorPartola wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you propose instead? So far package management solves these problems for me: 1. Upgrading the entire OS at once. 2. Easy updates. 3. Almost never having any issues with incompatible software. When issues arise I can easily roll things back or wait until they are fixed. 4. Never having to hunt for software on the web. 5. Ability to script server/workstation deploys. 6. Never having to spend more than 5 minutes…

I'm only speaking to the dependency-resolution function that makes package management necessary on certain OSes. Public application repositories sharing a standard interface still have some nice features. But if the applications are all statically-linked, I don't have to worry about dependency conflicts, and some things are a lot simpler, e.g. copying the binaries off to a flash drive to take them to another system,…

I don't really see how your approach to installing Windows applications can scale. Also, pinning will allow you to hold back any packages you'd like.

The only potential problem I see is statically-linked applications issue. However, I think in the case where libraries are open and shared amongst many applications/other libraries, it makes no sense to use static linking. Its advantages are that you don't need to worry about dependencies but that "is a solution to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place" since package management takes care of these issues.

IMHO it's better to spend 30 minutes once a year resolving an issue that arose when a Debian/Ubuntu repository got screwed up for a short period of time, than to constantly try to solve the problem of managing software installation/upgrades.

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#88

Post by india »

fauigerzigerk wrote: post #64
IgorPartola wrote: post #17

I keep try to evangelize the fact that things like apt are one of the biggest wins for the various UNIX-like OS's. In Windows world installing software takes both finding it and configuring the installer. On a Mac you have to at least find it. On Ubuntu/Debian/etc you just have to know the name (or you can search a central database). Also no more Java/Flash player/Acrobat Reader "needs to be updated" messages. You up…

The package manager concept is actually what I hate most about Linux systems and Ubuntu's strategy to not let you upgrade some packages without upgrading the OS itself is insane. Packages tend to thrust some completely idiosyncratic configuration scheme down my throat that is documented nowhere and that creates conflicts of its own. They don't just solve dependencies they encourage dependencies because they are suppo…

> The package manager concept is actually what I hate most about Linux systems

You really should give Slackware a try. None of that sophisticated package management nuisance[1] and everything just works!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slackware#Package_management

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#89

Post by borisk »

grease wrote: post #82
borisk wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both Windows and Mac OS X have server versions, that can easily be installed on desktops.

Seriously? Would you run a web-app on a Mac or Windows server?

Something like 30% of the Web servers on the Internet run Windows. There are millions of ASP.NET developers worldwide and Windows is by far the most popular Web platform for internal business apps.

Re: Thank you, Ubuntu

#90

Post by dinkumthinkum »

IgorPartola wrote: post #17

I keep try to evangelize the fact that things like apt are one of the biggest wins for the various UNIX-like OS's. In Windows world installing software takes both finding it and configuring the installer. On a Mac you have to at least find it. On Ubuntu/Debian/etc you just have to know the name (or you can search a central database). Also no more Java/Flash player/Acrobat Reader "needs to be updated" messages. You up…

Bah, it's not really that easy. I remember having an annoyingly difficult time getting a working up-to-date Glade on the latest LTS version. Sure, it worked on the latest Ubuntu just fine, but shouldn't we able to have some popular applications up-to-date without a big mess? But yeah, in general its pretty great.
Post reply on HN