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

Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 200 posts

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#141

Post by morsch »

moe wrote: post #125
morsch wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are broadly describing PPAs. Adding a package from a PPA is a three-line (easily scriptable) process: add-apt-repository , apt-get update , apt-get install . Obviously, that doesn't just work for PPAs, but for all apt repositories. Launchpad does some central indexing ("other versions of this package") for PPAs, but I don't think it's accessible via command line. There is no indication how popular a PPA is, but P…

You are broadly describing PPAs. Yes, indeed I am. The point where PPAs fall short is that the user still needs to add a repository when all he wants is to install a package. I maintain `apt-get install https://foobar.com/pkg` is where it's at. Feel free to query me all you want ("really add this untrusted repo?", "fetch updates from there?", "trust this key?" etc.), but by all means make it a one-liner. Not three, n…

Like I said, the three line process is trivially scriptable, so you could make a one-liner script that works like you describe, ie. install https://foobar.com/repositoryX pkg or install ppa:xorg-edgers/ppa nvidia-graphics-drivers. I suppose you could combine the two parameters into a single URL to make it more familiar for users.

I don't see why it'd have to be integrated into apt-get itself, which does other things. The next step would be to create this a GUI process and to integrate it into apt-url, to make it easy to install stuff from the web. Of course making it easier to install stuff from untrusted sources also makes it easier for users to install malware, which I recon is why they haven't made it this easy yet.

If you want to have the ability to pull updates, you need some location to query for them, and that location is the repository. Even if it's just for a single package. If you want to install a single package without updates, there's deb files.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#142

Post by agentgt »

I have to wonder if people's expectations are just a little to high for something that is free. I think a large amount of people complaining about Linux did not use it when it really really sucked (back when Slackware and RedHat were the only options).

Linux is a hackers operating system. When people try to make it into a desktop operating system it starts to suck (Gnome 3).

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#143

Post by andrewflnr »

sandGorgon wrote: post #63
DrCatbox wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what is the alternative to a non-distributions based gnu linux operating system? How do you manage the 1000 packages and their libraries and dependencies? Many of them have separate runtimes which may or may not depend on the other packages runtime. How would you design an application sandbox to cover them all? What you're saying basically is that linux is failed. At least for me, since I cant see another way to…

0-install ( http://0install.net/ ) or even better - Nix packaging system ( http://nixos.org/nix/ - they claim to be a purely functional package manager)

Dang... I'm going to go download the NixOS live image, now.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#144

Post by [deleted] »

acabal wrote: post #135
luser001 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where you're coming from, but people have the exact same problem with Windows (and maybe Mac also; but I don't have much experience with Macs). Many people are staying on XP because they dislike Windows 7/Vista. I suspect the same is happening with Ubuntu. I personally LOVE LOVE LOVE that all my apps are updated by the same program. Instead of the Windows/Mac way of each app running it's own updater. How…

We're talking about different problems. Windows does not have the problem I'm describing. If I want to update Firefox on Windows XP, I can do that without Windows forcing me to update to Windows 7 as part of the deal. That's the problem. Updating Firefox on Ubuntu 11.04 after a certain (very soon in the future) point in time necessitates an update to Ubuntu XX.YY. In fact you're precisely illustrating my point with y…

[deleted]

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#145

Post by luser001 »

acabal wrote: post #135
luser001 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand where you're coming from, but people have the exact same problem with Windows (and maybe Mac also; but I don't have much experience with Macs). Many people are staying on XP because they dislike Windows 7/Vista. I suspect the same is happening with Ubuntu. I personally LOVE LOVE LOVE that all my apps are updated by the same program. Instead of the Windows/Mac way of each app running it's own updater. How…

We're talking about different problems. Windows does not have the problem I'm describing. If I want to update Firefox on Windows XP, I can do that without Windows forcing me to update to Windows 7 as part of the deal. That's the problem. Updating Firefox on Ubuntu 11.04 after a certain (very soon in the future) point in time necessitates an update to Ubuntu XX.YY. In fact you're precisely illustrating my point with y…

> If I want to update Firefox on Windows XP, I can do that without Windows forcing me to update to Windows 7 ... Updating Firefox on Ubuntu 11.04 after a certain (very soon in the future) point in time necessitates an update to Ubuntu XX.YY.

I'm not 100% sure about it. As it happens I run both Ubuntu 10.10 (at work) and Ubuntu 11.10. I just saw an alert to upgrade my 10.10 Ubuntu to Firefox 11. I give them major props for keeping an major package like Firefox updated. They probably don't do this for other packages.

Now wrt app updates, people have pointed out downthread that PPAs can be added to the system by clicking a specially-encoded URL in Firefox). People on Windows also do things like download the file, locate it, double click, respond to a UAC prompt etc. So installing through PPA isn't that much more complicated. IMHO.

Also Ubuntu has a software store, to which developers are free to push their updates.

In summary, what people are wishing for in this thread is to have the 3-4 apps they use upgraded to the latest and greatest versions while leaving the core OS and other apps at baseline versions. But ... the solution of using PPA (analogous to downloading the app in Windows) is deemed too nerdy ... Leading to the conclusion that the distro should take responsibility for maintain all the 10s of 1000s of packages for ~10 years. Am I understanding you correctly? Probably ain't gonna happen.

Do you really think it would be a step forward if we got rid of the huge number of non-core packages in distros and had to hunt down PPA sources (again, equivalent to downloading apps from different websites in Windows) for each program. I'm not sure.

Continuing, I'm not sure the lack of updates for old releases is only a technical problem: XP has an installed base, so people jump through ALL kinds of hoops to make their programs work there. IIRC, there are major differences in audio/video/drivers between Win7 and XP, but people (e.g., Flash/Chrome) still do it.

I doubt developers will keep their apps updated and working on XP if it didn't have such a large installed base.

End long reply. :)

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#146

Post by anamax »

morsch wrote: post #88
muuh-gnu wrote: post #17

The reason I stopped recommending Linux to "normal users" is _because_ of the concept of distributions. Coupling the updates of single apps with the updates of the whole desktop or framework and libs, is just plain wrong. Having to upgrade the whole distro (including all the other installed apps you dont want to upgrade) just to install a new version of one single app you _want_ to update is a nightmare. Total bullsh…

Eh. First of all, you're not limited to the packages your distribution supplies. Lots and lots of software is distributed in Launchpad PPAs. Other stuff can be installed without the package manager, some games are statically compiled, etc. And I don't see what's wrong with requiring users to have an up-to-date system. Security fixes alone make regular updates almost mandatory on all operating systems. Windows install…

> And I don't see what's wrong with requiring users to have an up-to-date system.

I want a working-for-me system. Breaking it to make it "up to date" is a bug.

You're assuming that an application or version that has been replaced by something newer is necessarily broken/inferior/etc. You're wrong.

Yes, some updates do address security, but many/most don't and even the ones that do don't necessarily apply in all situations. Not to mention that security isn't the only priority.

Security isn't the only priority offline, so why would anyone think that it would be online? Disagree as to online? Show me your car, residence, or person and I'll be happy to demonstrate.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#147

Post by angersock »

harshreality wrote: post #113
muuh-gnu wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I don't see what's wrong with requiring users to have an up-to-date system. The problem are not the forced invisible security updates, the problem are forced user-visible upgrades. When you want to upgrade one app, you maybe dont want to simultaneously upgrade another app or even the whole desktop. With the distribution model, theres no way to avoid this forced interdependence.

Updates are not invisible by default because the organizations behind the distros can't provide the same level of assurance that Microsoft or Apple can that update X won't break something. Average users should have no say in keeping their apps from getting auto upgraded. Linux distros have to track upstream app releases because if they don't there will be breakage eventually. Some app will require a feature added in…

So, you've brought up another important point in the Linux/packagemanager ecosystem:

"Some app will require a feature added in lib X version Y, and they're still on Y-2."

Windows has had this solved for something like a decade. Sure, there's the much lampooned "dll hell", but honestly, Linux's solution was "lol lets upgrade things and break user apps".

There is zero excuse for apps in Linux to have library dependency issues. A package, when downloaded, should have its depended-upon libs and so's tagged. When some other application is updated and pulls in new version of the libs, the first app shouldn't ever see the update. Wouldn't that be nice?

Similarly, having a stable ABI to program against for system calls would be helpful. Users complain when their old apps break, and this is unavoidable under the current Linux development model (see http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/texts/linux-developers.ht... for a good article on this problem).

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#149

Post by jebblue »

PaulHoule wrote: post #66

I've been using Linux since 1993, and back then, the Linux OS and desktop were far superior to Windows 3.1. Then Win 95 came out and that had a decent desktop. I remember when the KDE people started talking about a desktop for Unix and people didn't get it, but when we saw the beta it was like... Wow! Then Red Hat Linux didn't like the license of KDE, so they had to create Gnome. As a result, rather than having one g…

> I still use Linux on servers, but desktop Linux has largely disappeared from my life. Every so often I try to install it here or there, but I typically find the experience disappointing. I was a Fedora fan for a long time, but Fedora became increasingly finicky about where it would install. I switched to Ubuntu, but every installation ends up having some serious problem.

A quick Google search reveals this was the fix and was found in 2008:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1004899

Perhaps I'm some kind of genius at using Google.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#150

Post by acabal »

luser001 wrote: post #145
acabal wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking about different problems. Windows does not have the problem I'm describing. If I want to update Firefox on Windows XP, I can do that without Windows forcing me to update to Windows 7 as part of the deal. That's the problem. Updating Firefox on Ubuntu 11.04 after a certain (very soon in the future) point in time necessitates an update to Ubuntu XX.YY. In fact you're precisely illustrating my point with y…

> If I want to update Firefox on Windows XP, I can do that without Windows forcing me to update to Windows 7 ... Updating Firefox on Ubuntu 11.04 after a certain (very soon in the future) point in time necessitates an update to Ubuntu XX.YY. I'm not 100% sure about it. As it happens I run both Ubuntu 10.10 (at work) and Ubuntu 11.10. I just saw an alert to upgrade my 10.10 Ubuntu to Firefox 11. I give them major prop…

Firefox is a special case. Ubuntu specifically updates that one package more frequently. Perhaps it was a bad example as that's one of the very few packages that is singled out for frequent updates by Canonical.

PPAs still aren't the best solution even if distros make them easy-to-use. The reason is that now maintainers have to get their software into two places: the core repos and now an optional up-to-date PPA. Additionally they must still target those PPAs to every single new version of the entire distro. For example: I run Natty because I like Compiz, but Oneiric has showstopper Compiz bugs for my ATI card. On Natty I use a PPA that downgrades the version of Compiz to a more stable one. However that PPA has not published an update for Oneiric, so I can't upgrade to Oneiric and get other new packages. What now? My fate is in the hands of a single PPA maintainer.

Or: many PPAs only publish releases for the past 2 or 3 distro releases. What if I'm on a non-LTS release and don't want to upgrade (because upgrading would bring in more unwanted packages), but the PPAs I use no longer publish for my version? I'm out of the game again.

The core problem in these scenarios is the distro model. Devs have to keep their apps up to date with the quickly-moving target of a "distro." That's just not a situation anyone should be in. The OP and the linked article explain this better than I can.

Post reply on HN