536
Monster
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
536 points (93.8% liked)
linuxmemes
20762 readers
1956 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
What if who cares?
When I used to build app packages internally I also built packages for our own python and ruby versions for our in-house software. The motto was: “system packages are for system software”. We weren’t writing system software, we were writing business software and shipping it, so why be dependent on what Redhat or Debian provided?
Universal packages are just an extension of this philosophy, and is why things like docker and app stores are such a success. Burdening the user with getting system dependencies right is worse than the DLL hell of the old windows days.
Docker is a success in some ways, but it's not a silver bullet. It's a great way to make a 800 KiB program ship in a complex 300 MiB box.
If you had an entire operating system built with static links, it would be giant and ugly. You have to stop and think: if it's such a great idea, then why does pretty much every distro supply packages with dynamic links?
When shipping your own software, yes, you certainly want control over your own runtime. If you rely on an OS-supplied Ruby, for example, then when Ruby 3.3.0 comes out, your gems will need to be rebuilt, and it'll happen by surprise. A runtime and shipping stuff to your own infra is much different than packages responsible for running the operating system.
Yeah, there is definitely a delineation between system and user, and like most things the line will be fuzzy.
But in that end-user software space, 300mb is a pittance to pay for a minor system package update not breaking their favorite application, or a user not being able to use software because their distro is one version behind on libfoo.
Imagine a world where people say "I would use Linux, but I'm going to stay with Windows because Linux is too bloated."
I don't know where the recent surge of not wanting package dependencies is coming from. Folks even not wanting dynamic links. We're acting like Linux distros are somehow suddenly broken or impossible to maintain, yet there are hundreds of successful distros doing just that, and for decades.
You gotta have more empathy for the average person.
If the average person cared about binary size in terms of bloat, then being that smartphone apps are almost all statically linked, why are smartphones the most popular computer in the world?
To them bloat would feel more like apps you can’t delete, or say ads in a key gui component.
The bloat most people will care about in terms of Linux is facing down a software update prompt with 1000 packages and feeling anxiety over the last such dialog box destroying the use of their favorite apps.
I’m glad there are hundreds of successful distros, their complexities will serve well the hundreds of Linux desktop users.
This would be a bug in packaging. File a bug with the distro.
This doesn't happen as often as you think on a properly-configured system.
There's another aspect than size that I feel people overlook: security updates. When e.g. libcurl is duplicated in a million places, how do you update them all when a critical security issue is discovered in it? Who will update all the random flatpaks, snaps and docker images that happen to include it?