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

Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

#61

Post by arendtio »

gameswithgo wrote: post #43
arendtio wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I'd love an ecosystem where things tend to be statically linked unless there is a good reason not to. Well, every time there is a bug fix in one of your dependencies you/your distribution would have to recompile everything that depends on it. Which will use quite some resources. So to actually use this you would have to reinstall (nearly) all programs once a week or so (no matter if source or binary distribution…

>Well, every time there is a bug fix in one of your dependencies you/your distribution would have to recompile everything that depends on it Well no, I could opt not to apply the bug fix if it isn't affecting me. This again is sort of serve mentality, where of course you want to get a bug fix in as quick as possible in case it is a security issue. A desktop user, maybe you don't. >After all, even nowadays application…

> Probably suggest arch linux to someone complaining about having to track down dependencies does not make sense, since such a person is more interested in the OS just working rather than making the OS a bit of a hobby that that they want to customize.

Sure, in the beginning you have to spend some time to set it up, but due to the rolling releases it has a great longevity. And talking about application integration, I prefer the package management style (even through AUR) greatly to the chaotic download some binary and execute it way windows does it. Over time your windows always gets so messy because every device manufacturer seems to think that it is cool, to bundle his device driver with hundreds of megabytes of non-sense-ware (last weekend I installed some Logitech driver on Windows, because the default Windows driver didn't work (on Arch I didn't have to install anything extra, just saying... yes, anecdotal evidence)).

Re: Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

#62

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #23
grafelic wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why care about "why" when there is "why not".

> Why care about "why" when there is "why not". Life is short. As I've gotten older, I've seen the importance on focusing my time and attention on what matters. So, personally, I'd want to know "why" so I could decide where the project ranks in my priorities.

Okay, how about this: Why are you on Hacker News? It clearly doesn't align well with your self-professed interests.

Re: Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

#63

Post by abainbridge »

bityard wrote: post #50
abainbridge wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer to have things clearly separated in functionality and easily upgradeable. What is your thinking here? Are you talking about a use case where you have an application that uses a library and a bug fix is issued for that library, so you want to just get the new .so for the library and have the application use it? That feels like a niche use case to me. Maybe there is another benefit, or this use case is more…

> That feels like a niche use case to me. I wouldn't call it a niche use case at all, it's exactly how the software for all major Linux and BSD operating systems are packaged and built. For example, when (not if) a vulnerability is found in OpenSSL, package maintainers just commit an update to the openssl package and users only have to download and install one package to patch their system against the vulnerability.…

OK, that makes sense. I error in my head was imagining a situation where the user was responsible for knowing which openssl .so file to download and where to put it.

Re: Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

#64

Post by zarkov99 »

arendtio wrote: post #39
gameswithgo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who uses linux casually, I often experience pain when I download a program, try to run it, and it fails because some dependency is not installed or is not the right version. So you try to figure out how to install it and it in turn needs a couple of things. All of this works fine if whatever package manager your distro uses has the program you want, but the package managers don't have evertying! So I'd lov…

> So I'd love an ecosystem where things tend to be statically linked unless there is a good reason not to. Well, every time there is a bug fix in one of your dependencies you/your distribution would have to recompile everything that depends on it. Which will use quite some resources. So to actually use this you would have to reinstall (nearly) all programs once a week or so (no matter if source or binary distribution…

> Well, every time there is a bug fix in one of your dependencies you/your distribution would have to recompile everything that depends on it. Which will use quite some resources.

This is far for more clear cut. Often some dependency bugs, might not impact my program. Even worse, sometimes by fixing a bug my program does not care about, a dependency might break my program in some subtle way. The author of the program is the best qualified person to make the upgrade/not upgrade decision.

Re: Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

#67

Post by pixl97 »

gameswithgo wrote: post #43
arendtio wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I'd love an ecosystem where things tend to be statically linked unless there is a good reason not to. Well, every time there is a bug fix in one of your dependencies you/your distribution would have to recompile everything that depends on it. Which will use quite some resources. So to actually use this you would have to reinstall (nearly) all programs once a week or so (no matter if source or binary distribution…

>Well, every time there is a bug fix in one of your dependencies you/your distribution would have to recompile everything that depends on it Well no, I could opt not to apply the bug fix if it isn't affecting me. This again is sort of serve mentality, where of course you want to get a bug fix in as quick as possible in case it is a security issue. A desktop user, maybe you don't. >After all, even nowadays application…

>Which, is why I mostly use windows.

Oh, Windows can have dependency hell. And even worse is when you have a WinSXS blowout and you're trying to figure out why that subdirectory is using up 80GB of space for an unknown reason.

Re: Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

#68

Post by jcelerier »

bityard wrote: post #50
abainbridge wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I prefer to have things clearly separated in functionality and easily upgradeable. What is your thinking here? Are you talking about a use case where you have an application that uses a library and a bug fix is issued for that library, so you want to just get the new .so for the library and have the application use it? That feels like a niche use case to me. Maybe there is another benefit, or this use case is more…

> That feels like a niche use case to me. I wouldn't call it a niche use case at all, it's exactly how the software for all major Linux and BSD operating systems are packaged and built. For example, when (not if) a vulnerability is found in OpenSSL, package maintainers just commit an update to the openssl package and users only have to download and install one package to patch their system against the vulnerability.…

> I wouldn't call it a niche use case at all, it's exactly how the software for all major Linux and BSD operating systems are packaged and built.

even though I'm typing this on a linux desktop, this is a niche use case. In Windows, macOS, iOS and Android, so 99.9% of all user-facing computing, all the libraries except the OS API are duplicated for each app.

Re: Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

#69

Post by boogies »

gameswithgo wrote: post #43
arendtio wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So I'd love an ecosystem where things tend to be statically linked unless there is a good reason not to. Well, every time there is a bug fix in one of your dependencies you/your distribution would have to recompile everything that depends on it. Which will use quite some resources. So to actually use this you would have to reinstall (nearly) all programs once a week or so (no matter if source or binary distribution…

>Well, every time there is a bug fix in one of your dependencies you/your distribution would have to recompile everything that depends on it Well no, I could opt not to apply the bug fix if it isn't affecting me. This again is sort of serve mentality, where of course you want to get a bug fix in as quick as possible in case it is a security issue. A desktop user, maybe you don't. >After all, even nowadays application…

> Probably suggest arch linux to someone complaining about having to track down dependencies does not make sense, since such a person is more interested in the OS just working rather than making the OS a bit of a hobby that that they want to customize.

Then recommend Manjaro, not an OS that “just” loads them down with ads, tracking, forced updates, and more unless — and to some extent still even after — they customize it.

Re: Oasis: a small statically-linked Linux system

#70

Post by [deleted] »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #23
grafelic wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why care about "why" when there is "why not".

> Why care about "why" when there is "why not". Life is short. As I've gotten older, I've seen the importance on focusing my time and attention on what matters. So, personally, I'd want to know "why" so I could decide where the project ranks in my priorities.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN