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

Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

itvision.altervista.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 402 posts

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#371

Post by ti_ranger »

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #268
smallbigfish wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"On Windows, you can basically use a UNC path" How about NFS in Linux? It's a lot more transparent than SMB will ever be in Windows. SMB is and will remain a Windows feature.

These aren't the same thing. In Windows, you can basically use a UNC path anywhere because CreateFile knows how to deal with it. The point is that you don't need to mount the remote filesystem (the Windows-equivalent being mapping a network drive).

I don't mount remote filesystems, autofs does it for me whenever I browse /net/$hostname

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#372

Post by ti_ranger »

hartator wrote: post #21

The only thing about Linux I never really like is the package system. Like if you want to install a new software, you usually don’t get .exe or .dmg. If you are lucky, the developer or some fans took the time to package it. Then you can do ‘apt-get’ ‘yum’ or ‘pacman’. However, packages got stalled and sometimes don’t match the original author intent. You can also build from sources, but it takes time and you have to…

> The only thing about Linux I never really like is the package system.

I think you just haven't used it enough to understand the advantages. If you don't need the lastest-and-greatest released last week versions, the package system is much more efficient that individually downloading hundreds of packages.

While Mac OS X has homebrew, it is still deficient in my opinion compared to most distros (because casks don't get upgraded by default).

> Like if you want to install a new software, you usually don’t get .exe or .dmg.

Why would I want either? Both have lots of issues. For example, by default: * No auto-update * Duplication of libraries and other files I already have * Spotty updates (e.g. who can be sure whether all libraries used have been patched by the latest version you have)?

> If you are lucky, the developer or some fans took the time to package it.

This is the case for > 99% of the software I use, even obscure stuff. For the other These days, many popular packages also provide .appimage files (similar to .app files on Mac OS X) or publish Flatpak's (including Slack, Spotify, VS Code, Skype etc. etc.), and these can be used on any recent distro.

> Then you can do ‘apt-get’ ‘yum’ or ‘pacman’. However, packages got stalled and sometimes don’t match the original author intent.

Sometimes the original author doesn't know best ... in most cases packagers upstream their changes or discuss them with upstream.

> You can also build from sources, but it takes time and you have to know a bit of CLI. It never felt true freedom to me. But more like whatever the community feels make sense for whatever distribution weird dictactorship. Just a feeling and I still love and support Linux.

It seems like you never exercised your ability to vote, and think that everyone else is dictating to you ...

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#373

Post by ti_ranger »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #105
mixedCase wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between Flatpak and AppImages we have good solutions for both people who prefer package managers as well as people who prefer a single file that can be run on double click. As far as solutions goes, this problem is solved. They just need to be better known by software distributors.

Flatpak is over-engineered garbage. You still can't even install things on different disks without setting up an entirely new 'installation' or whatever they call it. And you still need a repo. Meanwhile I can trivially make most Windows software work from a USB drive I can carry around between computers. AppImage can do that too, since it is a lot less over-engineered, but sadly very few developers use AppImage and…

> Flatpak is over-engineered garbage.

But, it works, especially for the use case of the "I need the latest and greatest versions of two packages".

> AppImage can do that too, since it is a lot less over-engineered, but sadly very few developers use AppImage and it even distributions like Nitriux that claim to support AppImages don't display icons for them.

So, use one of the other 20 distros where AppImages just work, perfectly, out-the-box.

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#374

Post by ti_ranger »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #273
frankling_ wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how the package management in a Linux distribution could be considered a walled garden. Commonly it's cited as the exact opposite of that (see the table here: [1]). What type of freedom are you missing in something like Debian, where you can edit and recompile the core components of your system at a whim, the system even supporting you through source packages, and where anything outside the package mana…

The freedom to not have to jump through ridiculous hoops like compiling from source just to use an application the distro didn't deem worthy of inclusion in their repo.

> to use an application the distro didn't deem worthy of inclusion in their repo.

How did you come to this conclusion? Did you request the package be included in the distro you use? If so, and it wasn't provided, provide the bug report/feature request link ...

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#375

Post by ti_ranger »

sandov wrote: post #366
mr_toad wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to dozens or even hundreds of different websites to download the latest versions of software and then manually installing them all isn’t fast at all. c.f. apt-get upgrade or similar, which takes a few seconds.

>c.f. apt-get upgrade or similar, which takes a few seconds. Except when the package isn't included, or it isn't the version you needed, because then you have to spend 40 minutes trying to install all the dependencies and building the package from source, instead of the 3 minutes it would have taken to install an .exe on Windows.

> because then you have to spend 40 minutes trying to install all the dependencies and building the package from source, instead of the 3 minutes it would have taken to install an .exe on Windows.

No, you take 2 minutes to install it using flatpak, or download a .appimage file.

And if neither of those are available, you spend that 40 minutes packaging the software, and submitting it to the distro you use for inclusion.

(If it was already packaged, but not new enough, that's a ~5 min job to do the update for your distro)

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#376

Post by ti_ranger »

sandov wrote: post #65
gerdesj wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have never used Linux in any form. There are multiple package managers, granted. However, one strength they all share is: "you usually don't get .exe or .dmg"! Absolutely! Apps are integrated and not simply add-ons as they are in Windows or Apple land. When I want to install say libreoffice or wireshark I simply ask the system to install them. I absolutely do not browse the internet and download something…

But you have to live under the wing of your distro mantainers, instead of installing whatever you want from any third party. Isn't Linux supposed to be about freedom? Yes, you can install software using tarballs, but it's not usable for 90% of users, and not because of the distribution model, but because of the lack of standardization in a good, easy to use application-installing API.

> But you have to live under the wing of your distro mantainers, instead of installing whatever you want from any third party. Isn't Linux supposed to be about freedom?

You don't. Yes, but if you don't take advantage of the freedom, that's not freedom's fault.

> Yes, you can install software using tarballs, but it's not usable for 90% of users, and not because of the distribution model, but because of the lack of standardization in a good, easy to use application-installing API.

See Flatpak. Go look at what software is available at https://flathub.org/apps , but both GNOME and KDE have application managers that can install from Flatpak repos (configured to use Flathub by default), and possibly the distro's native package manager as well (via PackageKit).

Or you can also use AppImage files.

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#377

Post by Mister_Snuggles »

ti_ranger wrote: post #369
Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is definitely not an easy problem to solve given the design of Linux. I don't know why I didn't remember this earlier, but I actually explored this a number of years ago and came up with two things that are close, but not quite there: First was to use a systemd automount unit[0], but I didn't really get anywhere with it. From the looks of it you have to know all the possible things you could want to automo…

> I also explored the good old automounter[1][2], but it has a lot of the limitations that systemd's does. It does have the advantage of supporting host maps, which gets me a bit closer to what I'm looking for. The unfortunate thing that remains is that this is NFS instead of a modern protocol. What limitations affect you? (At home, I have linux running on an HP MicroServer as my NAS, it exports filessytems via NFS.…

Interesting, I'll have to give automount another look.

The last time I tried it was years ago, so I can't remember what limitations I found. If I get a chance to do this in the near future I'll report back.

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#378

Post by gsich »

Dahoon wrote: post #360
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually yeah, lots of software that was compiled for Windows 95 really does still run fine on Windows 10. Games are a big exception. What doesn't work is 16-bit Windows applications, at least not without DOSBox.

Yes lots of programs still work if you just do this little thing and maybe this little hack which is the same as not working unless you use hacks. Which brings us back to what I wrote.

What "little thing" for example?

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#379

Post by gsich »

Dahoon wrote: post #362
badsectoracula wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main issue you'll face on trying to run old 32bit Windows 95 applications on modern 64bit Windows 10 is that the installers often are 16bit and 64bit Windows do not support 16bit applications (which was actually technically possible, at least for protected mode 16bit applications which is the majority of them, as shown by Wine being able to run almost all 16bit programs under 64bit Linux). Once you go past that h…

Have you tried something like StarOffice 4.0? Hacking around in the installer is using hacks.. which was my point.

No it's not.

Re: Linux Problems on the Desktop (2018)

#380

Post by alxlaz »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #353
pjmlp wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy, Red-Hat used to pay the salaries for a big chunk of GTK/GNOME developers.

GNOME 3 is also far from universally deemed unusable, (I use it daily with great success), despite what the propaganda would have you believe.

Pretty much this, I'd say. I know people who like its design and find it very comfortable. I'm definitely not one of them but fortunately no one heeded the calls to just build one desktop environment to rule them all :).
Post reply on HN