Kiss Linux – A distribution with a focus on less is more

Post by burpsnard » Thu, May 21, 2020, 4:01 PM UTC

catern wrote: post #85

enriquto wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way out of dependency hell is to disallow it by allowing multiple versions/different configurations of side-by-side packages (...) Another elegant way, for a more civilized time, is to simply disallow dependencies. If none of your packages has any dependencies, then no dependency hell is ever possible. This is possible and easy with static executables (for binary packages), and by embedding the interpreter…

Static binaries still have dependencies, they just embed them all into one file. That's not generically possible - as the most trivial example, consider a bash script which runs other executables. If you're trying to solve this problem, you need to actually solve it for all real cases; otherwise your solution breaks down and you're back where you started, in dependency hell.

Post by stutonk » Thu, May 21, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

goldenkey wrote: post #91

stutonk wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your own logic, your own UNIX solution to the file renaming problem is "not shell" since it uses the mv "utility". Or do you mean rename is not POSIX? The shell language certainly is lacking for almost anything beyond its original purpose of gluing together pipelines/graphs of UNIX commands; it's a largely unintentional DSL from the time before many modern notions of language ergonomics had become established. The…

Okay so how would it be done without mv..using the POSIX rename syscall? https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/re... mv is basically just a shim over rename so I don't see your point. Shell may be to glue things together but it's supposed to also be a decent language for doing file/filename related things.

Post by carapace » Thu, May 21, 2020, 4:25 PM UTC

Post by carapace » Thu, May 21, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

Kototama wrote: post #30

rwnspace wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you explain more re: bugs? Dylan Araps sort of specialises in well-written (ba)sh and iirc uses shellcheck meticulously. I ask not to be combative in case you're just making a casual joke - more I'd like understand how bugs might creep in to (ba)sh code - even if say, one follows shellcheck and is as competent as Dylan.

I saw that after posting. It's not a critic of Dylan's work, more a critic of how difficult it is to write good bash code. Your comment on shellcheck and Dylan expertise just confirm it. It's like C, you could write safe C but it's very difficult. I wish there was a language with the ubiquity of Bash but modern and safe.

Post by kleer001 » Thu, May 21, 2020, 5:13 PM UTC

miguelmota wrote: post #93

I’m not familiar with Kiss but it looks interesting; what’s the benefit of Kiss over something like Arch Linux which is already minimal?