Live data from Hacker News

The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

blog.ngas.ch

21–30 of 80 posts

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#21
post #8

While I don't quite understand the specifics the author describes, I can relate very well to the general problem: Open Source software often depends on packages that are common on the Linux Desktop. This quickly gets you into dependency hell if you try to compile the program/library on a different platform. An example I was recently confronted with was libmdb, a library that reads Microsoft Access databases. For some…

As opposed to closed source dependancies on the .NET runtime or DirectX or Java?

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#22

I really would like to understand/get feedback (if the author is reading here as well or someone agrees with the rant) - what 'services' on a server really depend on NetworkManager I cannot imagine that a server would actually need it (although, on my _desktop_ I most certainly want it and love it). From my vps (granted, not LTS. But did they actually _remove_ a dependency here? I highly doubt that): darklajid@neulan…

honestly i didn't get the NetworkManager thing either. since my Arch Linux days i remember that it's manageable from cli. although i never used that cli. but the thing that touched me is that there are standards like POSIX for the cli world and there are standards like DBus for the gui world and lack of any sane standards for both of them. POSIX-based software and DBus-based software took quite different paths in the…

Wait a moment. DBus is not a 'gui thing'. It is a protocol for inter-process communication. I'm not in bed with it in any way, but it seems to do a good job. You can use it from ~every~ language of your choice. Its adoption cannot (just?) be blamed on politics, it's just dead easy to use for a programmer.

Lately (and that seems to be something the author of the blog post resents) it pushed further into the system layer, for example with dbus activated services (systemd, but I'm pretty sure upstart had that as well). For as long as I can remember your distribution always started a system-level dbus instance and (only here we're talking gui/desktop environment heavy) one per session/login/user.

If you have problems with dependencies between a couple of programs that talk different protocol levels:

- Someone messed up packaging. Or you installed something in a ~weird~ way

- The same could easily happen with any other 'let's make these processes from totally unrelated projects and running using different underlying technology communicate' solution. Dbus cannot protect you from changing interfaces.

- .. except, maybe it _wouldn't_ easily happen, because without an easy way to do what dbus offers I guess you'd have fewer software and less integration points. Which you might label a Good Thing and I'd disagree.

Ubuntu still is easily manageable from the command line. It might be different from your LFS/Gentoo/Arch etc. solutions, but it's closer than FreeBSD and others. I've no love for Ubuntu, but claiming that you cannot easily (okay - define that) learn its ways and how to fix or customize it yourself? I think you should reconsider that part..

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#23
post #8

While I don't quite understand the specifics the author describes, I can relate very well to the general problem: Open Source software often depends on packages that are common on the Linux Desktop. This quickly gets you into dependency hell if you try to compile the program/library on a different platform. An example I was recently confronted with was libmdb, a library that reads Microsoft Access databases. For some…

How is modularization and code reuse a bad thing? Fortunately, both source and binary distributions are great when it comes to dealing with dependencies.

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#24
post #15

tl;dr Linux is getting to be a mess, with all kinds of dependencies. I guess it really comes down to your distro (since Linux is just the kernel, it's the distro which adds in all the bits). He's complaining about using RHEL and Ubuntu on a router. I think those are meant to be run on big servers. I'd guess Slackware and Gentoo are better bets for running a small server. There are also distros designed to be used on…

Speaking as someone who has a couple of legacy servers running Gentoo: Don't do that.

Usually there's no need to have a compiler on a production machine and certainly not on a router. Unless, well, your package manager wants one. Yes, I know that you can have binary packages for Gentoo, but that kind of defeats the point.

I haven't found a serious distribution that doesn't allow you to install a stripped down system and go from there.

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative would be for libmdb to implement that stuff themselves. That would increase development time, increase the amount of bugs, increase the size and decrease developer happiness.

Or they could link statically. They're both under the LGPL, and it seems like the sensible thing to do if they're only using the library for hash tables...

Didn't downvote you, but .. How?

The project authors certainly don't care about people with 'special' requirements. For them it just saves time. Now the packagers _could_ do what you suggest, but especially for such a central library it doesn't make sense. You want to have only one version of that thing for a gazillion reasons.

The original request for this thread? Well, it seems that person wanted to port a library to a completely different system _and created the binary for that system_. Right, he can statically link it. What does he gain? He still needs to gather all dependencies before and his complaint (as a developer/distributor) of having to meddle with glib would be the same. He didn't complain about distributing another couple .so files as far as I understand the issue.

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#27
It's 2012. Who cares?

I think Linux on the desktop hit its peak in the early 2000s, when 'Windows, Mac and Linux' was in people's minds, we had Linux companies like Loki and Transgaming etc, commercial games from Epic and ID, proper UX-focused companies like Eazel and Ximian, etc.

I think most people have given up, but that's OK: Linux on the desktop, back then, still made a huge difference to today. GNOME had GTKHTML which spawned a rival KHTML which became Webkit which now seems to be the app platform for the thing that came after the desktop - the browser.

Now I have more apps open in Chrome right now than I do in the dock, taskbar, gnome panel. So do many users. And the direction is more in the browser than ever.

It's not just Linux: worrying about the desktop per se is irrelevant - like worrying about the dominant groupware platform or the dominant LAN manager. OS/2 might be better than NT, but nobody cares anymore.

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#28

Network manager is particularly annoying. It doesn't seem to like static IP addresses at all, sure the GUI will allow you to assign them but it doesn't actually seem to affect the system at all. I tried disabling NetworkManager since on my development box I like to have a number of static IPs assigned to it for testing on the LAN. However I also want to be able to easily connect to wireless networks and I can't find…

Did you file a bug for that behavior? It sure doesn't seem to behave like that for me. While I cannot and won't claim that you're wrong, this is not supposed to be the case (and isn't in my private and professional experience). You acknowledge that NM is 'easy' for wifi, but try hard to abandon it for reasons that are unclear. Except for tracking down the real error/filing bugs: Why couldn't you just set up a simple…

The issue with static IPs & Network Manager is posted all over the internet (just google "network manager static ip" so I assume they know about it already. Frankly I don't know enough about how NetworkManager works to dig into the source code and isolate the issue, since it's been ongoing for a while and I'm not the only person experiencing it I'm going to assume it would not be a simple fix.

I could use dhcp rules but then I sometimes have to move my development machine to other places where of course I will be on a different dhcp server which I may not have admin access to. The workaround of having a shell script that sends a bunch of "ifconfig" commands does the job for me whilst still allowing me to use NM for wifi config but it just seems like something that should be unnecessary.

I sort of assume that most experience Linux people have experienced some sound issues at some point. My problem with pulseaudio has always been the slight latency that seems to happen between sound being sent by the program and played by the speakers which means that for example when an MP3 file is paused the sound continues for a fraction of a second. Sure this may not be a huge issue and I didn't even notice it for a while but as soon as I noticed it, it really started to grind on me. Not to mention that it makes the system terrible for doing any kind of audio editing.

The solution for this is to uninstall pulseaudio and go back to ALSA which is a bit of a pain in itself, but once you've achieved this you get odd problems like (in ubuntu anyway) the sound control panel applet disappears and you have to run alsamixer to change the volume, also volume control for some programs (such as spotify) stops working completely.

There are a number of other various small issues that can make desktop Linux a pain to use sometimes, this is why I am often surprised that canonical seem to prioritize redesigning the GUI every few releases over fixing stuff like this.

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#29
post #27

It's 2012. Who cares? I think Linux on the desktop hit its peak in the early 2000s, when 'Windows, Mac and Linux' was in people's minds, we had Linux companies like Loki and Transgaming etc, commercial games from Epic and ID, proper UX-focused companies like Eazel and Ximian, etc. I think most people have given up, but that's OK: Linux on the desktop, back then, still made a huge difference to today. GNOME had GTKHTM…

I'm not sure , if more apps move to the browser then surely the desktop OS becomes more of a commodity as long as it is able to support running the browser itself.

One thing Linux does lend itself well to is providing a kernel and basic services for interacting with hardware etc and leaving a fairly blank sheet to build other stuff on top off which could be a very basic consumer system with just a browser or a full fat dev environment, Android is a good example of this.

If all I want to do is run HTML5 apps using Chrome I can't think of a good reason to justify a $100 purchase of a Windows license , or paying more for hardware in order to run OSX.

In the future I can imagine a huge amount of the population using Linux based devices, they just won't know or care that they are Linux based devices. However I don't forsee a future in which everyone uses KDE or Unity and run only "free as in freedom" software.

Re: The destructive desktop — Linux in trouble?

#30
post #13

tl;dr - Author tries to patch together his/her own distribution; and fails. To provide a good user experience you need to know if the network is up or down; and when it changes. UNIX does not provide this. This is why NetworkManger is now part of the "Linux Platform". The biggest myth in open source: "Linux is about choice".

if I could downvote.

Linux is always about choice. If you have enough information and time you can choose what ever software stack you want with it. You can even change any configuration software that comes with your distribution with any tool you want.

Also author does not rant about building a self owned distribution. The rant can even be considered good if you do think Linux is only about graphical desktop applications. Linux software can be configured or used without these but it's getting real hard to disregard their influence over other software.

Post reply on HN