Comment by forrestthewoods

Comment by forrestthewoods 17 hours ago

5 replies

View on Hacker News

> That is a very silly argument considering that Docker is built on primitives that Linux exposes

No.

I am specifically talking about the Linuxism where systems have a global pool of shared libraries in one of several common locations (that ever so slightly differs across distros because fuck you).

Windows and macOS don’t do this. I don’t pollute system32 with a kajillion random ass DLLs. A Windows PATH is relatively clean from random shit. (Less so when Linux-first software is involved). Stuffing a million libraries into /usr/lib or other PATH locations is a Linuxism. I think this Linuxism is bad. And that it’s so bad everyone now has to use Docker just to reliably run a computer program.

Package managers for software libraries to compile programs is a different scenario I’ve not talked about in this thread. Although since you’ve got me ranting the Linuxisms that GCC and Clang follow are also fucking terrible. Linking against the random ass version of glibc on the system is fucking awful software engineering. This is why people also make Docker images of their build environment! Womp womp sad trombone everyone is fired.

I don’t blame Linux for making bad decisions. It was the 80s and no one knew better. But it is indeed an extremely bad set of design decisions. We all live with historical artifacts and cruft. Not everything is a trade off.

pxc 14 hours ago

> I am specifically talking about the Linuxism where systems have a global pool of shared libraries in one of several common locations (that ever so slightly differs across distros because fuck you).

> Windows and macOS don’t do this.

macOS does in fact have a /usr/lib. It's treated as not to be touched by third parties, but there's always a /usr/local/lib and similar for distributing software that's not bundled with macOS just like on any other Unix operating system. The problem you're naming is just as relevant to FreeBSD Ports as it is to Debian.

And regardless, it's not a commitment Nix shares, and its problems are not problems Nix suffers from. It's not at all inherent to package management, including on Linux. See Nix, Guix, and Spack, for significant, general-purpose, working examples that don't fundamentally rely on abstractions like containers for deployment.

I totally agree with this, though, and so does everyone who's into Nix:

> Stuffing a million libraries into /usr/lib [...] is bad.

> I don’t blame Linux for making bad decisions. It was the 80s and no one knew better. But it is indeed an extremely bad set of design decisions. We all live with historical artifacts and cruft. Not everything is a trade off.

Reply View 0 replies
imiric 17 hours ago

> Windows and macOS don’t do this. I don’t pollute system32 with a kajillion random ass DLLs.

You can't be serious. Are you not familiar with the phrase "DLL hell"? Windows applications do indeed put and depend on random ass DLLs in system32 to this day. Install any game, and it will dump random DLLs all over the system. Want to run an app built with Visual C++, or which depends on C++ libraries? Good luck tracking down whatever version of the MSVC runtime you need to install...

Microsoft and the community realized this is a problem, which is why most Windows apps are now deployed via Chocolatey, Scoop, WinGet, or the MS Store.

So, again, your argument is nonsensical when focused on Linux. If anything, Linux does this better than other operating systems since it gives the user the choice of how they want to manage applications. You're not obligated to use any specific package manager.

Reply View 3 replies
  • forrestthewoods 16 hours ago

    > which is why most Windows apps are now deployed via Chocolatey, Scoop, WinGet, or the MS Store

    rofl. <insert meme of Inglorious Bastards three fingers>

    > Good luck tracking down whatever version of the MSVC runtime you need to install...

    Perhaps back in 2004 this was an issue. That was a long time ago.

    You use a lot of relevant buzz words. But it’s kinda obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about. Sorry.

    > Linux does this better than other operating systems since it gives the user the choice of how they want to manage applications

    I would like all Linux programs to reliably run when I try to run them. I do not ever want to track down or manually install any dependency ever. I would like installing new programs to never under any circumstance break any previously installed program.

    I would also like a program compiled for Linux to just work on all POSIX compliant distros. Recompiling for different distros is dumb and unnecessary.

    I’d also like to be able to trivially cross-compile for any Linux target from any machine (Linux, Mac, or windows). glibc devs should be ashamed of what they’ve done.

    Reply View 2 replies
    • imiric 15 hours ago

      > Perhaps back in 2004 this was an issue. That was a long time ago.

      Not true. I experience this today whenever I want to use an app without a package manager, or one that doesn't bundle the VC runtime it needs in its installer, or one that doesn't have an installer.

      > You use a lot of relevant buzz words. But it’s kinda obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about. Sorry.

      That's rich. Resort to ad hominem when your arguments don't hold any water. (:

      > I would also like a program compiled for Linux to just work on all POSIX compliant distros.

      So use AppImage, αcτµαlly pδrταblε εxεcµταblε, a statically compiled binary, or any other cross-distro packaging format. Nobody is forcing you to use something you don't want. The idea that Linux is a flawed system because of one packaging format is delusional.

      You're clearly not arguing in good faith, and for that reason, I'm out.

      Reply View 1 reply