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

Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

loss32.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 493 posts

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#381

Post by Rohansi »

nineteen999 wrote: post #364
LeFantome wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so you agree with him except where he says “in a VM” because you say you can also do it “in a container”. Of course, you both leave out that you could do it “on real hardware”. But none of this matters. The real point is that you have to compile on an old distro. If he left out “in a VM”, you would have had nothing to correct.

I'm not disagreeing that glibc symbol versioning could be better. I raised it because this is probably one of the few valid use cases for containers where they would have a large advantage over a heavyweight VM. But it's like complaining that you might need a VM or container to compile your software for Win16 or Win32s. Nobody is using those anymore. Nor really old Linux distributions. And if they do, they're not rea…

> But they'll happily take a paycheck for writing a bunch of shit Go/Ruby/PHP code that runs on Linux 24/7 without downtime - not because of the quality of their code, but due to the reliability of the platform at _that_ particular task.

But does the lack of a stable ABI have any (negative) effect on the reliability of the platform?

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#382

Post by TUSF »

ben-schaaf wrote: post #224
ok123456 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Versioned glibc symbols are part of the reason that binaries aren't portable across Linux distributions and time.

Only because people aren't putting in the effort to build their binaries properly. You need to link against the oldest glibc version that has all the symbols you need, and then your binary will actually work everywhere(*). * Except for non-glibc distributions of course.

> You need to link against the oldest glibc version that has all the symbols you need

Or at least the oldest one made before glibc's latest backwards incompatible ABI break.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#383

Post by marcthe12 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #162
scrivanodev wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can only speak for Flatpak, but I found its packaging workflow and restricted runtime terrible to work with. Lots of undocumented/hard to find behaviour and very painful to integrate with existing package managers (e.g. vcpkg).

Yeah, flatpak has some good ideas, and they're even mostly well executed, but once you start trying to build your own flatpaks or look under the hood there's a lot of "magic". (Examples: Where do runtimes come from? I couldn't find any docs other than a note that says to not worry about it because you should never ever try to make your own, and I couldn't even figure out the git repos that appear to create the offici…

Well flatpak was started pre oci. But its core is is just ostree + bwrap. Bwrap does the sandboxing and ostree handles the storage and mount. Now there still a few more stuff but these 2 are the equivalent to docker. Bwrap is also used for steam and some other sandboxing usecases. Ostree is the core of fedora silverblue. Runtimes are special distros in a way, but since the official one are pretty building everything from source so the repos tend to be messy with buildscripts for everything.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#384

Post by ogogmad »

nineteen999 wrote: post #358
johnny22 wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because they care about ABI/API stability.

And have an ever decreasing market share, in desktop, hypervisor and server space. The API/ABI stability is probably the only thing stemming the customer leakage at all. It's not the be all and end all.

Decreasing market share in the desktop?

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#385

Post by ogogmad »

rixed wrote: post #333
rep_lodsb wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So every Linux distribution should compile and distribute packages for every single piece of open source software in existence , both the very newest stuff that was only released last week, and also everything from 30+ years ago, no matter how obscure. Because almost certainly someone out there will want to use it. And they should be able to, because that is the entire point of free software: user freedom.

Those users will either check the source code and compile it themself, with all the proper options to match their system; or rely on a software distribution to do it for them. People who are complaining would prefer a world of isolated apps downloaded from signed stores, but Linux was born at an optimistic time when the goal was software that cooperate and form a system, and which distribution does not depend on a ce…

No. People would prefer the equivalent of double-click `setup.exe`. Were you being serious?

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#386

Post by znpy »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #113
znpy wrote: post #12

> What is this? A dream of a Linux distribution where the entire desktop environment is Win32 software running under WINE. I might unironically use this. The Windows 2000 era desktop was light and practical. I wonder how well it performs with modern high-resolution, high-dpi displays.

Xfce already exists and has less impedance mismatch. It’s almost as good in some ways, probably better in a few tiny ones.

I already use xfce, of course!

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#387

Post by [deleted] »

Maskawanian wrote: post #299
grishka wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you want to use a newer or older version of just one package without having to update or downgrade the entire goddamn universe? What if you need to use proprietary software? I've had so much trouble with package managers that I'm not even sure they are a good idea to begin with.

I know you are trying to make a point about complexity, but that is literally what NixOS allows for.

[deleted]

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#388

Post by jccx70 »

"Yes. I can't tell you how many times the ability to just download a goddamn .exe file and run it in WINE has saved my ass. Seemingly every creative project I undertake eventually requires downloading some piece of software which is either impossible or impractical to rebuild myself, and whose Linux and macOS ports no longer work or never existed. There's more than three decades of Win32 software — .exe files! — that can run in WINE or (of course) on Windows. No other ABI has that kind of compatibility record. WINE can even run Win16 stuff too.

The really cool thing about Win32 is it's also the world's stable ABI. There's lots of fields of software where the GNU/Linux and POSIX-y offerings available are quite limited and generally poor in quality, e.g. creative software and games. Win32 gives you access to a much larger slice of humanity's cultural inheritance. "

What a pile of bullshitting.

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#389

Post by malmz »

malmz wrote: post #379
CorrectHorseBat wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android makes a sport of breaking ABI compatibly and it hasn't stopped it from being the most popular mobile OS

What are you even talking about? Android is by far the most popular mobile OS worldwide. It's only in the US where iPhones are dominant.

Nvm I can't read

Re: Loss32: Let's Build a Win32/Linux

#390

Post by jccx70 »

kasajian wrote: post #268

I'll check back every few years to see if either this project, Wine or ReactOS can run Visual Studio 2026 (or 2022) and .NET Framework 4. Not talking about the cross-platform versions of .NET and VS-Code. I'm specifically talking about the Windows-specific software I mentioned above. I don't see this happening, despite the fact that by now, these types of porting efforts were supposed to be trivial because of AI. Yea…

You better change software.
Post reply on HN