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

Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

lkml.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 136 posts

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#41

Post by muuh-gnu »

onli wrote: post #38
jiggy2011 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why this was down voted so much, there is an element of truth to it. When you are dealing with different distributions that provide different versions of core libraries, different sound architectures , package managers and put things like executables and config files into different parts of the filesystem. I thought that the Linux standard base would be the way to solve this.

Probably because though there is an element of truth in it, it just sounds plain wrong. After two sentences i thought "he probably works for microsoft or another big corporation", not because it's flame, but because of the attitude to regard this as pure chaos (and having no big plan as bad). I even looked up the profile. There is kind of a release-plan, not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros ar…

> not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros are for

The problem is that no app dev targets stable distros, but always goes for the latest and greatest from the upstream so distros are constantly forced to update libs and change the base system.

So with a stable distro, you cant get a new version of an app, because the libs of your distro are too old, and you need to upgrade the whole distro just to be able to get that new app you want.

The Linux ecosystem needs one distro (say Ubuntu) to become so influential, that app devs start to primarily target it instead of the upstream. Only then will the library space stop being a moving target for end users, and only then it will be possible to upgrade app1 without triggering an automatic update of app2, which both happen to depend on the same lib. Only then will these useless practices of "packaging" and "backporting" finally stop, and devs will be simply make packages themselves, like they do on windows or osx. Only then will users be able to install a distro once, and then be able to install new apps for 5-10 years without having to upgrade the whole distro every 6 months.

> I wouldn't want the ecosystem to stagnate right now. Or ever.

But with an ecosystem as unstable as the current one you wont get more than 1% of the market right now. Or ever.

Normal users and especially businesses simply dont want to constantly update their systems. Force them to do that, and they simply walk away.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#42

Post by cafard »

ot wrote: post #34
16s wrote: post #24

I got a good laugh from this quote: "[Linux] is not some crazy drug-induced microkernel"

That sentence is a betrayal of UNIX's history: There are two major products that came out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. (Jeremy S. Anderson)

One wonders whey they left out Calvinism and the transistor...

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#43

Post by michaelmior »

aptwebapps wrote: post #28

An easy way to read the whole thread: http://markmail.org/thread/wwi2aynfiliqanil I don't understand why Mark Mail doesn't get more love. I wish they had better SEO or something, it's so much easier to read a long thread on their site then most mailing list archives.

Here's a link to the actual message referenced by the submission http://markmail.org/message/d4dfw53uqwhdj24i

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#44

Post by mrud »

aptwebapps wrote: post #28

An easy way to read the whole thread: http://markmail.org/thread/wwi2aynfiliqanil I don't understand why Mark Mail doesn't get more love. I wish they had better SEO or something, it's so much easier to read a long thread on their site then most mailing list archives.

I don't like it because it seems to have no threaded view. I really like gmane much more for mailing list discussions - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1245999/focus=126...

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#45

Post by reddit_clone »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #31
Negitivefrags wrote: post #16

In my experience binary compatibility on linux is a train wreck. Ever tried to get a binary compiled 5 years ago to run on a fresh install of linux? Good luck. If you still have the specific version of every shared library that it loaded you might be able to get it to work. This isn't the fault of the kernel team though. It is probably to be expected on platforms in which distributing source code is the default optio…

> This isn't the fault of the kernel team though. It is the result of having no unified platform and library release coordination, no long term plans, nothing, just chaos. Everybody just releases when he is in the mood for it. And since nothing is complete when released, devs further down the chain always go for the latest and greatest to get additional functionality. And to upgrade app1, you have to upgrade lib1 whi…

>everyone coming from Windows, where you have a reliable, stable base system which doesnt change for a decade

Now, you are being plain funny. Haven't you heard of 'DLL Hell' in Windows platform?.

You never had 'windows update' break your software for no reason?

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#46

Post by Lozzer »

mapleoin wrote: post #37
ot wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sentence is a betrayal of UNIX's history: There are two major products that came out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. (Jeremy S. Anderson)

I think it rather refers to MINIX.

More likely HURD

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#47

Post by icebraining »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #41
onli wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because though there is an element of truth in it, it just sounds plain wrong. After two sentences i thought "he probably works for microsoft or another big corporation", not because it's flame, but because of the attitude to regard this as pure chaos (and having no big plan as bad). I even looked up the profile. There is kind of a release-plan, not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros ar…

> not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros are for The problem is that no app dev targets stable distros, but always goes for the latest and greatest from the upstream so distros are constantly forced to update libs and change the base system. So with a stable distro, you cant get a new version of an app, because the libs of your distro are too old, and you need to upgrade the whole distro just to…

The Linux ecosystem needs one distro (say Ubuntu) to become so influential, that app devs start to primarily target it instead of the upstream. Only then will the library space stop being a moving target for end users, and only then it will be possible to upgrade app1 without triggering an automatic update of app2, which both happen to depend on the same lib. Only then will these useless practices of "packaging" and "backporting" finally stop, and devs will be simply make packages themselves, like they do on windows or osx. Only then will users be able to install a distro once, and then be able to install new apps for 5-10 years without having to upgrade the whole distro every 6 months.

What happens in Windows is not what you're describing; developers are simply forced to distribute their own copies of the libraries (as DLLs or statically compiled) since there is no package manager. What then happens is that there are dozens of copies of the same libraries, most of them lacking bugfixes and even security patches.

The dependency system used by Linux distros may have its problems, but it surely beats ad-hoc dependency management, even if it requires backporting.

Normal users and especially businesses simply dont want to constantly update their systems. Force them to do that, and they simply walk away.

Right. If you use Windows, have you tried counting the number of update managers running in the background, the number of applications that ask you on launch to "verify updates", the number of times Windows Update alerts you, etc?

Windows machines are constantly updating. Unlike Ubuntu, they just do it incrementally instead of once every six months (except for security patches). But that's better fixed by moving to a rolling release scheme.

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#49

Post by muuh-gnu »

reddit_clone wrote: post #45
muuh-gnu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn't the fault of the kernel team though. It is the result of having no unified platform and library release coordination, no long term plans, nothing, just chaos. Everybody just releases when he is in the mood for it. And since nothing is complete when released, devs further down the chain always go for the latest and greatest to get additional functionality. And to upgrade app1, you have to upgrade lib1 whi…

>everyone coming from Windows, where you have a reliable, stable base system which doesnt change for a decade Now, you are being plain funny. Haven't you heard of 'DLL Hell' in Windows platform?. You never had 'windows update' break your software for no reason?

I've never had to upgrade Windows (including all installed apps) to be able to install some other random app.

On Linux, having to upgrade the distro (including getting a new desktop environment force-installed) to get a new version of any random app is established practice. Example: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3822

Re: Linus Torvalds: Programs exist for their users

#50

Post by scott_w »

muuh-gnu wrote: post #41
onli wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because though there is an element of truth in it, it just sounds plain wrong. After two sentences i thought "he probably works for microsoft or another big corporation", not because it's flame, but because of the attitude to regard this as pure chaos (and having no big plan as bad). I even looked up the profile. There is kind of a release-plan, not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros ar…

> not for the whole eco-system, but that's what stable distros are for The problem is that no app dev targets stable distros, but always goes for the latest and greatest from the upstream so distros are constantly forced to update libs and change the base system. So with a stable distro, you cant get a new version of an app, because the libs of your distro are too old, and you need to upgrade the whole distro just to…

To an extent, they already do.

The bigger development teams don't focus on a single distro, as their development base is probably diverse enough to demand a certain degree of platform compatibility.

However, many of the smaller development teams will focus almost exclusively on Ubuntu, as it is the distro they will most likely have.

I know, from my own limited experience, that I have only ever attempted to make my systems work on Ubuntu and just allowed others to push their changes into the main development if they have specific platform that they prefer to use.

Post reply on HN