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

171–180 of 200 posts

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#171

Post by runjake »

luser001 wrote: post #118
acabal wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been saying this same thing for years. Package managers are a nice concept in theory, but Linux on the desktop will never, ever succeed until upgrading (for example) Firefox doesn't result in an install of Unity. The entire concept of a milestone-based monolithic distro is so broken for desktop use that I can't believe a better alternative hasn't been developed yet. Even as a Linux nerd I'm constantly faced with…

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…

Windows has which problems, exactly? His mentions are pretty Linux-specific and I couldn't find one that applied to Windows.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#172

Post by zalew »

DrCatbox wrote: post #164
freshhawk wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left your cousin with arch installed but didn't tell him that it's necessary to keep a rolling release distro up to date? Hell, I have to keep up with the mailing list and the news page on the website just to keep my OS working update to update. It's worth it for me because of my needs but Arch is very very specifically NOT for the average user. You basically set your cousin up to fail. And it's not like the bran…

Because what else can I pick? Ubuntu!? Ugh. He tried Fedora earlier, we couldnt get it to work with his wireless-networking, SELinux always getting in the way as soon as he took his laptop with him somewhere, I got tired of pushing against a wall as I was becoming his support, and then he asked what Im using, how does it work for me. So Arch it was.

have you heard of Debian?

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#173

Post by unlogic »

moe wrote: post #83
icebraining wrote: post #16

So, how does the fact that any person or company can host their own packages or even full repositories that can be added with a single click ¹ and are not dependent on hierarchical organizations fit in that? GNU/Linux distros, at least APT based ones, are perfectly distributed if the person wants to. ¹ If you have apt-url installed, which Ubuntu has by default

I agree that distributed repositories are the way forward. The only thing holding that back is the atrocious user-interface. Debian urgently needs to fix that and push their apt-infrastructure out of the 1990s. In short: /etc/apt/sources.list must die. This is how it must work: apt-get install https://foobar.com/debian/squeeze/widget-1.0 A package installed like that must add itself automatically to a proverbial sour…

> tldr; apt needs to absorb homebrew.

An excellent package manager that exists for 14 years already is being told to mimicry a primarily inferior set of cruthes? The world has definitely gone mad.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#174

Post by Abomonog »

Sounds like he wants a distro agnostic Ports system, one that hides the dirty work of watching compile time crap fly across the screen and just gives the user a suitable package for their distro.

Either that or he's essentially suggesting we move to static compiled packages, which while tremendously inefficient from a space and security standpoint would alleviate at least some of the headaches of trying to do cross distro binary offerings.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#175

Post by acabal »

luser001 wrote: post #161
acabal wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Add…

You want stability and a slowly-changing core system, but won't use the LTS releases? Because your app provider doesn't make updated PPA's for the LTS release. At which point you blame the existence of the distro's non-LTS releases? I think the correct target of your ire should be the app developer who doesn't produce PPAs for the LTS release. I carefully read what you wrote, and IMHO your requirements are not reason…

I want what Windows does: Stable core, independent apps. The entire concept of "LTS" is a red herring. It's a byproduct of the distro mindset. To put it another way: There is no Windows LTS. You buy one version of Windows and it works for a decade--a DECADE--and your apps are kept updated for as long as the developer cares to do so, often automatically in-app. (There's no Windows "app store", but as Apple demonstrates it's a matter of will, not technology, to make one.)

That is simply not the case with Linux today no matter how you frame it. And for some reason too many Linux supporters are totally blind to that because they think package managers are flawless gems of convenience. They mistake package managers for convenience when in reality they're a band-aid for a situation that shouldn't exist in the first place, and that other OS's have solved better. The OP calls this out perfectly.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#176

Post by luser001 »

runjake wrote: post #171
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…

Windows has which problems, exactly? His mentions are pretty Linux-specific and I couldn't find one that applied to Windows.

OP said: "I'm stuck on Ubuntu Natty, for example, because it has the last stable version of Compiz that worked for me on the flgrx ATI drivers."

It's easy to imagine a similar problem (somebody stuck on XP because for e.g., a device driver exists only for XP). For instance, an old laptop of mine has a webcam driver only for Vista but not Windows 7.

http://www.sevenforums.com/drivers/43156-dv6000-webcam-drive...

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#177

Post by moe »

morsch wrote: post #141
moe wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't see why it'd have to be integrated into apt-get itself

That's exactly what I'm talking about. To give just one of many reasons: Because currently 'apt-get update' fails hard as soon as a PPA repo disappears. These corner cases must not exist. This is fundamental infrastructure, save the "easy workarounds" for higher levels.

Apt has been "almost there" for about 10 years now. But "almost" is not good enough - neither for desktop-users, nor for professional deployments with puppet/chef that have to fight the same and similar issues (e.g. idiotic license seed files, key conflicts, daemons auto-starting after installation, unreliable exit codes/error reporting, insufficient logging, insufficient hooks to override defaults).

We're in a state of inertia where everyone is so used to working around ever the same bugs that they're not even recognized as bugs anymore. I should absolutely not need a ~80 line puppet manifest or chef cookbook to make apt behave right. Desktop users should absolutely not have to find a bash-script (no matter how small) to be able to seamlessly install third party software.

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.

I'll quote pg on this: If you think something is supposed to hurt then you're probably doing it wrong.

Apt is a beautiful concept. Sadly the implementation stopped evolving shortly after becoming "good enough" rather than proceeding to "the best we can possibly make it".

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#178

Post by rbanffy »

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…

> He basically wanted to upgrade just one (obscure) app

No. He wanted a new version of the app and upgraded to a new version of the OS (with a new set of default packages). And he got surprised by getting a new GUI, something which is rather odd because Unity was one of the most publicized features of Ubuntu.

> the process triggered the automatic removal of Gnome2 and installation of Unity

Not really. Gnome2 would still be there. Just the default UI is Unity. I'm more than a little bit surprised ESR had trouble remembering you switch UIs on login. I've been doing it since my Solaris (2.5) days. I loved OpenWindows.

> having to upgrade the whole distribution every few months just to be able to get new app versions

That's not really true - you have to do so because the distro publisher won't support the newest Chrome on their 2006 OS. It's ridiculous to demand them to spend their resources on your particular needs. If you are not happy, you can ask to have your money back. And even when the distro publisher doesn't want to add newer versions to an old OS, you can always add private repos maintained by the makers of your favorite software.

And, remember, having stable versions of software (even when a newer, flashier version, was made public) is not what some people want. I wan't my servers stable.

> This "distribution" bullshit is not what is killing desktop Linux

It was never much alive. Linux is an OS that suits a couple users well, but not most of them.

> are imho just consequences of the distribution concept and the 6-month planned-obsolescence cycle.

It usually took much longer to get a new version of your favorite Linux distro. 6 months is the current standard. And, again, there is no planned obsolescence. There are many alternative places to get newer versions for.

> Windows installations, once installed or preinstalled, run for a decade.

I don't believe we met, sir. Where planet are you from?

> If anybody _ever_ really wants to see Linux succeed on the desktop (...) he will have to give up on the distribution concept first.

I don't think so. In fact, most people don't think so. And, let me say that not thinking so works quite well.

You do realize the incredibly arrogant position you are taking. You purport to be the savior of the Linux desktop (do we need one, BTW?) and to have realized what's wrong with it and, best of all, you have the solution! Just do everything opposite to how it's been working for decades and all our problems will be solved.

Let me put it simply: when you think you are the dumbest person in a room, you are probably right. When you think you are the smartest person in a room, you are most probably wrong. And if you disagree with everybody else in the room, odds are you are really the dumbest person there.

Maintaining a distro is a lot of work, but until we can make software makers to agree on a single package format, a single way to manage configurations and a single way to organize the file hierarchy, the distro way will remain a very popular way to manage your computers.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#179

Post by rbanffy »

runjake wrote: post #171
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…

Windows has which problems, exactly? His mentions are pretty Linux-specific and I couldn't find one that applied to Windows.

My first digital camera had drivers only for Windows 98. I had to dual boot until I got a CF card reader.

Re: Ingo Molnar on what ails the Linux desktop

#180

Post by georgemcbay »

angersock wrote: post #147
harshreality wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Windows has even solved virtually all of "dll hell" via SxS.

Linux distros would do well to implement something similar. Disk space and RAM are cheap, having a few different versions of the same DLLs is no big deal. I don't remember the last time I had a .dll problem in Windows post Vista, whereas I still run into .so issues nearly constantly in Linux distros.

Post reply on HN