Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#1

Post by ward » Sat, May 02, 2015, 4:37 PM UTC

Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)
0pointer.net

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#2

Post by 0x006A » Sat, May 02, 2015, 4:54 PM UTC

That's a post from September 1st 2014. Any particular reason to (re)post this today?

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#3

Post by angersock » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

0x006A wrote: post #2

That's a post from September 1st 2014. Any particular reason to (re)post this today?

Because some of us may not have seen it yet?

Can we please stop with the posts in every thread being pedants about article age without any useful comment of their own. It's been getting noticably worse into the last few months.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#4

Post by Redoubts » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #3

0x006A wrote: post #2

That's a post from September 1st 2014. Any particular reason to (re)post this today?

Because some of us may not have seen it yet? Can we please stop with the posts in every thread being pedants about article age without any useful comment of their own. It's been getting noticably worse into the last few months.

I'd rather not see these kind of posts stop. Frequently, there's a good reason to post an older article on a particular day, and calling it out helps bring out the new modern context. Otherwise, reminding readers that a submission happened in a different environment from today is worth while on its own.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#5

Post by listic » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:34 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #3

0x006A wrote: post #2

That's a post from September 1st 2014. Any particular reason to (re)post this today?

Because some of us may not have seen it yet? Can we please stop with the posts in every thread being pedants about article age without any useful comment of their own. It's been getting noticably worse into the last few months.

Just adding '(2014)' should be good enough for everyone, I think.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#6

Post by angersock » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:35 PM UTC

Redoubts wrote: post #4

angersock wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because some of us may not have seen it yet? Can we please stop with the posts in every thread being pedants about article age without any useful comment of their own. It's been getting noticably worse into the last few months.

I'd rather not see these kind of posts stop. Frequently, there's a good reason to post an older article on a particular day, and calling it out helps bring out the new modern context. Otherwise, reminding readers that a submission happened in a different environment from today is worth while on its own.

Then the author should leave a comment explaining the significance of the day...otherwise, these posts tend to just clutter things up.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#7

Post by jordigh » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:38 PM UTC

Isn't this a lot like Gobolinux again?

http://www.gobolinux.org/

It seems to go a bit beyond just treating each package as its own fiefdom but all the way to doing it with separate OSes, but it's the same basic idea: cooperation is impossible, every package for itself.

It's essentially how Apple's app bundles work too: everything has to package all of its dependencies. This seems to use btrfs instead of dmg.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#8

Post by Redoubts » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

angersock wrote: post #6

Redoubts wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather not see these kind of posts stop. Frequently, there's a good reason to post an older article on a particular day, and calling it out helps bring out the new modern context. Otherwise, reminding readers that a submission happened in a different environment from today is worth while on its own.

Then the author should leave a comment explaining the significance of the day...otherwise, these posts tend to just clutter things up.

Or HN could just have comment folding baked in. There's more than one way to solve this problem :^)

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#9

Post by Spidler » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:49 PM UTC

For those that wish to see what came from this, we have:

Sandboxed Apps https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps from Alex Larsson.

The code is hosted at https://github.com/alexlarsson/xdg-app .

The first xdg-app release https://blogs.gnome.org/alexl/2015/03/31/official-gnome-sdk-... has some more details and summary, and links to the proof of concept builds.

Re: Revisiting How We Put Together Linux Systems (2014)

#10

Post by vezzy-fnord » Sat, May 02, 2015, 5:51 PM UTC

I'm the one who originally submitted this on 9/1/14, FWIW.

I'm not sure if there's any substantial progress update yet. Last I heard, they're still waiting for kdbus to be merged, after which they'll need to finish up the GNOME sandboxing features, and only then will they truly start.

Given that kdbus is receiving some shaky reception, it might prove to be a while.

The weird thing to me is why Nix was never brought up. Not only that, but Lennart was actively avoiding the question when he submitted this to his G+ feed.