Comments on: More Socialism http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/ A pragmatic look at the state of FOSS Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:02:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: LinuxLover http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3350 LinuxLover Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:41:36 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3350 I'm only an inch long down there. I’m only an inch long down there.

]]> By: Thomas King http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3244 Thomas King Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:31:35 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3244 When my dick is hard I expect immediate attention from a head nurse. When my dick is hard I expect immediate attention from a head nurse.

]]> By: John Stamos http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3132 John Stamos Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:43:40 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3132 I should have clarified -I was refering to the kernel API, that whole bit about subsystems should have given that away mind you. You know, stuff like in-kernel hooks disappearing, the audio subsystem as a whole, the situation with DRI some years back, the fact that GregKH makes it clear that there's 'no need' for backward compatibility, nor to maintain a stable API. Way to go, I'm talking source, you argue binary files, and even invoke Wine (which provides a relatively stable ABI), and could very well be a static build to begin with. Yeah, keep arguing something completely different and feeling all smug about yourself. I should have clarified -I was refering to the kernel API, that whole bit about subsystems should have given that away mind you. You know, stuff like in-kernel hooks disappearing, the audio subsystem as a whole, the situation with DRI some years back, the fact that GregKH makes it clear that there’s ‘no need’ for backward compatibility, nor to maintain a stable API.

Way to go, I’m talking source, you argue binary files, and even invoke Wine (which provides a relatively stable ABI), and could very well be a static build to begin with.

Yeah, keep arguing something completely different and feeling all smug about yourself.

]]> By: Declination http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3063 Declination Sat, 12 Sep 2009 00:07:25 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3063 [citation needed] If this where the case why would you even bother writing an application like alien to convert across distributions. There would be no point since the resulting conversion is guaranteed not to work. You might want to tell that to Google too. Google Earth runs on linux. Yes, it is a bastard hybridization of Wine oddities, but it still has to interface with libc somewhere or it wouldn't run. They distribute a single .bin file that installs. Just in the same way linux users who claim a BSOD every day haven't used Windows since the 90s, you clearly have not used linux since the 90s either. [citation needed]
If this where the case why would you even bother writing an application like alien to convert across distributions. There would be no point since the resulting conversion is guaranteed not to work. You might want to tell that to Google too. Google Earth runs on linux. Yes, it is a bastard hybridization of Wine oddities, but it still has to interface with libc somewhere or it wouldn’t run. They distribute a single .bin file that installs.

Just in the same way linux users who claim a BSOD every day haven’t used Windows since the 90s, you clearly have not used linux since the 90s either.

]]> By: Bob Saget http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3060 Bob Saget Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:22:37 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3060 Even the source isn't all that backward compatible, with the rate at which subsystems change, mutate, are purged and replaced. When source needs to be altered or rewritten to work, there is no source-level compatibility. Even the source isn’t all that backward compatible, with the rate at which subsystems change, mutate, are purged and replaced.

When source needs to be altered or rewritten to work, there is no source-level compatibility.

]]> By: Neken http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3057 Neken Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:16:21 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3057 linux cross-compatibility and backward-compatibility is a myth. the SOURCE-CODE of the applications are backward-compatible, but the binaries ? hell no. every single different version of the libc seg faults the application if it's the wrong one installed, every version of the kernel breaks the application, etc. the fact that it's only the source code that is compatible isn't really a great feat IMO. linux cross-compatibility and backward-compatibility is a myth.

the SOURCE-CODE of the applications are backward-compatible, but the binaries ? hell no. every single different version of the libc seg faults the application if it’s the wrong one installed, every version of the kernel breaks the application, etc.

the fact that it’s only the source code that is compatible isn’t really a great feat IMO.

]]> By: Declination http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3050 Declination Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:34:30 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3050 "How does that matter again? Regardless of what the installer was authored with, you get a setup.exe app which you just run, on *any* version of Windows, and it works just the same (click I agree, next a few times, then finish). I can be on XP Home, Vista Enterprise or Win7 Ultimate, and it works just the same (regardless of OS is used or what particular app created the installer)" Consider the fact that the the canonical way of installing packages uses the Windows Installer toolkit, which is effectively a custom database built into windows. It supports a whole bunch of really cool features, many of which are indeed more advanced than linux package managers. My favorite among these is advertisement. The entire package management features in windows are based around the .msi format and invoked through msiexec. Yes, some .exe packages unpack themselves and launch and msi installation. One of which I noticed doing this is actually the OpenOffice installer. However, most of the other installer toolkits don't support the msi format and perform custom actions on the registry and the package database themselves. You can see this at work if you were to happen to launch several installers at the same time. msi packages will error out telling you to finish what you were doing first, however, traditional exe packages will continue without complaint. The end result of this is that developers have to pick and installer and hope they can make it do what they want. If you pick nullsoft you have to jump through hoops to support automatic repair in the way that msi packages can. Its not quite as complex as multiple package formats, but all of the installers out there that are simpler than trying to author an msi yourself or using WiX (which is a good forsaken thing that involves typing Mbs of xml) you are effectively using a different feature set which might be incompatible with the official way. This leads to things like uninstallers leaving files/shortcuts behind even though msi tracks everything it installs. Its not as complicated as distro packaging for multiple distros. Its developer complexity that's still there. Oh, and as I said before, Opera went overboard on their linux packages as I said. They could have gotten away with a .bin file that upacks into /opt and does a little bit of version checking to figure out the correct places to put .desktop files. Opera was kind enough to provide all those packages and as a result they also get the benefits of package management and easy upgrades when new versions come out, but, if you'll notice on that same desktop page they offer a single download that supports: [x] Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope, Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex, Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron And I'm willing to be it continues working on 9.10 as well. As a result, they built one package back around 8.04 and it keeps on working for them mostly because the debian/ubuntu respostories are littered with "compatibility dummy packages" that preserve dependencies when things are renamed. My question for you is did you use their download page from linux box? It takes you to the distro you using. “How does that matter again? Regardless of what the installer was authored with, you get a setup.exe app which you just run, on *any* version of Windows, and it works just the same (click I agree, next a few times, then finish). I can be on XP Home, Vista Enterprise or Win7 Ultimate, and it works just the same (regardless of OS is used or what particular app created the installer)”

Consider the fact that the the canonical way of installing packages uses the Windows Installer toolkit, which is effectively a custom database built into windows. It supports a whole bunch of really cool features, many of which are indeed more advanced than linux package managers. My favorite among these is advertisement. The entire package management features in windows are based around the .msi format and invoked through msiexec. Yes, some .exe packages unpack themselves and launch and msi installation. One of which I noticed doing this is actually the OpenOffice installer. However, most of the other installer toolkits don’t support the msi format and perform custom actions on the registry and the package database themselves.
You can see this at work if you were to happen to launch several installers at the same time. msi packages will error out telling you to finish what you were doing first, however, traditional exe packages will continue without complaint.
The end result of this is that developers have to pick and installer and hope they can make it do what they want. If you pick nullsoft you have to jump through hoops to support automatic repair in the way that msi packages can. Its not quite as complex as multiple package formats, but all of the installers out there that are simpler than trying to author an msi yourself or using WiX (which is a good forsaken thing that involves typing Mbs of xml) you are effectively using a different feature set which might be incompatible with the official way. This leads to things like uninstallers leaving files/shortcuts behind even though msi tracks everything it installs. Its not as complicated as distro packaging for multiple distros. Its developer complexity that’s still there.

Oh, and as I said before, Opera went overboard on their linux packages as I said. They could have gotten away with a .bin file that upacks into /opt and does a little bit of version checking to figure out the correct places to put .desktop files. Opera was kind enough to provide all those packages and as a result they also get the benefits of package management and easy upgrades when new versions come out, but, if you’ll notice on that same desktop page they offer a single download that supports:
[x] Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope, Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex, Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy Heron
And I’m willing to be it continues working on 9.10 as well. As a result, they built one package back around 8.04 and it keeps on working for them mostly because the debian/ubuntu respostories are littered with “compatibility dummy packages” that preserve dependencies when things are renamed.

My question for you is did you use their download page from linux box? It takes you to the distro you using.

]]> By: Anon http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3049 Anon Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:45:59 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3049 "That being said, yes his ISG is a retarded idea mostly because nothing that overreaching ever works out the way you think it should and leads to terrible bureaucracy and inefficiency." - Declination Wait, what? “That being said, yes his ISG is a retarded idea mostly because nothing that overreaching ever works out the way you think it should and leads to terrible bureaucracy and inefficiency.” – Declination

Wait, what?

]]> By: Tux Rulz http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3048 Tux Rulz Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:34:06 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3048 Kerberos got pwned by Declination. Kerberos got pwned by Declination.

]]> By: Anon http://piestar.net/2009/09/10/more-socialism/#comment-3044 Anon Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:25:49 +0000 http://piestar.net/?p=223#comment-3044 "I don’t know about software note being compatible across versions." So what about the constantly moving target that is the sound API causing even relatively new apps to break? And this is just the tip of the ice cube, lets not forget the differing filesystem layouts and the horrible dependancy mess that comes with even tiny little apps. Fact is the distros can't even agree on a package format and fs layout (and standard libraries), forcing anyone distributing software to have to package it multiple times for all the variations. And this is for the sub 1% market. Windows, with 90% marketshare, only requires 1 installer for just about every version of Windows ever made. “I don’t know about software note being compatible across versions.”

So what about the constantly moving target that is the sound API causing even relatively new apps to break? And this is just the tip of the ice cube, lets not forget the differing filesystem layouts and the horrible dependancy mess that comes with even tiny little apps.

Fact is the distros can’t even agree on a package format and fs layout (and standard libraries), forcing anyone distributing software to have to package it multiple times for all the variations. And this is for the sub 1% market. Windows, with 90% marketshare, only requires 1 installer for just about every version of Windows ever made.

]]>