"Distribution packaging for #Linux desktop applications is unsustainable"
Did you mean systemd/Linux?
I tried to read that article, but the example it gave was installing the proprietary malware known as steam, so I stopped reading.
The fact is, the kernel, Linux's SYSCALL ABI for each architecture does not change once it is stabilized.
You can run a statically linked elf from 1998 that only uses Linux SYSCALLs and it'll work today.
But, generally binaries are dynamically linked for security and sanity reasons and so you can't just copy those between systems and expect them to work.
Even so, generally libraries like glibc are forwards compatible, but you can't expect the ABI to be the same after 20 years - only the API.
As a result, the real packaging solution is to compile from source and let the compiler and build scripts to the rest.
Gentoo-libre and Guix is an example of how to properly manage packaging.
Really, you only have issues with packaging when it comes to using proprietary malware, as you can't compile software you only have the binaries of, as a result, the real solution is to just not use proprietary malware.
🇳🇱
> First, it will never be the year of the "Linux desktop", as Linux is only a kernel and doesn't operate on its own.
Did you mean systemd/Linux?
Cant say this makes sense. Obviously linux needs many things to run and doesnt run on its own. It needs systemd, gnu userland, a x86 cpu, a motherboard, electricity, etc.. we dont say "Today is the year of linux, systemd, x86, motherboard, electricity"... we just say linux.
why, because its the component we care about in this discussion. We are sayi g "is this the year desktops finally start using linux as its kernel".
Those Linux developers made the deliberate choice to panic() unless there's an init.
A kernel doesn't particularly need an init to work, but the developers made a deliberate decision to make Linux require one: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/init/main.c#n1569
Even though you think it's obvious, most people don't and assume that Linux is the OS - and nobody tends to correct this mistake, they prefer to make it all the time.
>It needs systemd, gnu userland, a x86 cpu, a motherboard, electricity, etc
systemd isn't required, I use a different init.
Linux is more or less a glorified bootloader for GNU emacs that does nice things like schedule process.
You don't specifically need that kind of 32 bit CPU or a motherboard, you can use a non-x86 SoC's instead.
>we dont say "Today is the year of linux, systemd, x86, motherboard, electricity"... we just say linux.
Thus you miss the point completely.
GNU is shorter to say and write, so write that instead of GNU+Linux if you wish.
>why, because its the component we care about in this discussion
Linux is actually irrelevant in this discussion, as package managers handle packaging, not kernels.
Also, many other OS's have comparability layers that translate most Linux SYSCALLs and most of the so called "Linux software" operates just fine.
@Suiseiseki Most people refer to linux as the OS they run, but no they arent making a mistake, they just arent being padantic. Most know quite well its a component in a larger system and only represents the kernel. They simply dont care to geek out and explain what they mean in a padantically long explanation. They say Linux and are done with it.
Now nothing wrong with you wanting to be padantic and explicit about it. By all means go for it, I get where you are coming from. But no, its not people getting it wrong, its people not caring to get into the distinction.
Its also important to point out that there are a dozen alternatives to systemd, just as there are many alternatives to the kernel, linux. I love linux, I really dont care if i am running systemd or one of its alternatives. So I am far more apt to announce the linux part of my setup than anything to do with systemd.
It's pedantic.
>Most know quite well its a component in a larger system and only represents the kernel.
Everything I've seen so far is the opposite - rather most people don't know it's only a kernel: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.en.html
>They simply dont care to geek out and explain what they mean in a padantically long explanation. They say Linux and are done with it.
There's no need for a long explanation - you can just call it GNU and be done with it and save yourself a few characters.
>I love linux >I am far more apt to announce the linux part of my setup than anything to do with systemd.
systemd at least is free software unlike Linux - which contains proprietary software.
I like GNU Linux-libre, but not the proprietary malware Linus releases.
> Everything I've seen so far is the opposite - rather most people don't know it's only a kernel: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.en.html
I will use my own experience as opposed to trusting what is possibly the most bias source one could find on this matter.
> There's no need for a long explanation - you can just call it GNU and be done with it and save yourself a few characters.
No because the GNU userland may not be what they are praising or caring about. I care that i am on Linux, The GNU component in that isnt as note worthy for me nor needing mentioning in most of the context i bring up linux. I am more than happy to run Linux with alternatives to GNU userland installed.
> systemd at least is free software unlike Linux - which contains proprietary software.
That doesnt change anything in this conversation
> I like GNU Linux-libre, but not the proprietary malware Linus releases.
Great, since GNU is what you are focusing on in what you say, because its an important part, then by all means say it. Just dont get your underwear in a bunch just because other people dont care to mention the GNU component and are simply happy about the Linux component or feel its the component worth mentioning.
Everything I've written about is from my own experience, the article is just an excellent explanation of the issue.
>No because the GNU userland may not be what they are praising or caring about.
If GNU didn't exist, we wouldn't have a free software OS. You may not care about freedom, but don't you dare deny it exists.
>I care that i am on Linux, The GNU component in that isnt as note worthy for me nor needing mentioning in most of the context i bring up linuxx
In my experience, in most situations Linux is brought up, Linux is actually irrelevant to the topic and other software is of relevance and should be named instead
>I am more than happy to run Linux with alternatives to GNU userland installed.
If you do that, then it's *more* important to mention such usage, not less, so people know what you are talking about.
If you use BusyBox+Linux, say you use BusyBox+Linux.
I've looked at dependency trees and keep finding GNU software dependencies for most nontrivial software - I reckon I could find a GNU dependency for BusyBox tracing the dependency tree back far enough.
>Just dont get your underwear in a bunch just because other people dont care to mention the GNU component and are simply happy about the Linux component or feel its the component worth mentioning.
I'm not getting angry, I just point out mistakes.
If you refer to the OS as just "Linux", you are either making a mistake or intentionally being wrong pretty much.
Time to get that 64 bit GNU/Hurd port done...
> Everything I've written about is from my own experience, the article is just an excellent explanation of the issue.
I have no doubt you are basing it off your experience. While I respect yur opinion I also know it to be incorrect from my own experience.
> If GNU didn't exist, we wouldn't have a free software OS. You may not care about freedom, but don't you dare deny it exists.
Not once did anyone claim GNU didnt exist, not once.
> In my experience, in most situations Linux is brought up, Linux is actually irrelevant to the topic and other software is of relevance and should be named instead
Thats because you assume people mention linux mean only the kernel in isolation, rather than the full expiernce of using the kernel... Usually what they mean is something more like "I like being on linux regardless of what user land I use with it the experience is great as long as I use linux in some form i am enjoying it". The userland may be needed to work and is even part of what is enjoyed, but it isnt the relevant aspect to mention.
> If you do that, then it's *more* important to mention such usage, not less, so people know what you are talking about.
If you use BusyBox+Linux, say you use BusyBox+Linux.
Not at all, because whatever alternative I choose isnt relevant to what I and most people say.. We dont CARE what userland is being used when people refer to linux generically, as long as its linux the choices around it largely arent as important, we are happy if it is built on linux.
> I'm not getting angry, I just point out mistakes.
If you refer to the OS as just "Linux", you are either making a mistake or intentionally being wrong pretty much.
It is not a mistake, just as it isnt a mistake when someone says "I love running windows" and are really implying they love using things like Microsoft edge and Microsoft word on a windows system. The microsoft lovers love the experience of being on windows, and that includes all the things built on top of it, nnot just the core os.
I am more of a pragmatist than an ideologist - if a compromise is required to solve a problem, but doing such will eliminate problem, I don't have much issue making a temporary compromise.
I do not make permanent compromises that don't end up solving the an issue mind you.
>"Linux" conquered the global mindshare, by a combination of coincidences, influences, agendas and possibly malignant actors. FSF/GNU messaging was (is?) weak.
I do not care in the slightest about "mindshare".
The messaging is not weak at all, it is very strong - it's just that we usually cannot do better than messaging from large businesses dedicated to manipulating people.
>GNU and Linux are both successes from the strengths of the other. GNU would probably have been dead by now, had Linux not showed up. And had GNU not existed, Linux would probably not have taken off.
I don't understand how free software is meant to be "dead" just because it lacks a kernel for a while.
GNU software was very "popular" on proprietary Unix's during its development as well.
If Linux didn't exist, GNU/Hurd would have been completed instead - development of such started before Linux mind you.
Meanwhile, Linux wouldn't have become "popular" without GNU, as a kernel is useless by itself and even if it did (i.e. a bunch of other software was somehow found and also made to work), such resulting OS would likely be all proprietary, as GNU is the only nontrivial OS I've seen that actually cares about being all free software.
@Suiseiseki
1. "popular" back then, we are talking thousands, maybe 10s of thousands of users. The Linux distros amplified that by 2 magnitudes early on. Would GNU have survived? Yes, most likely. Like Forth still survive today. Would GNU be a dominant force in software development? Perhaps. Would it be a primary OS for Internet. Most probably not.
2. GNU/Hurd; " started before Linux" --> case in point. First mover advantage, and still no advantage. Still no 1.0 release. That's mindshare.
As far as I am aware, the kernel, Linux didn't become very "popular" until Linus decided to release it as free software in 1992, as that permitted GNU developers to adjusted GNU software to work well with it - so I don't think Linux was the thing doing the "amplification".
>Would GNU be a dominant force in software development? Perhaps. Would it be a primary OS for Internet. Most probably not.
Which OS would likely have become the primary used one for the internet if GNU didn't exist?
It likely wouldn't be the BSD's, as rms was the one who asked one of the BSD's to consider becoming free software, as none originally were.
As far as I am aware, none of the maintained BSD's are free of proprietary malware today.
>First mover advantage, and still no advantage.
Hurd was a research project that required a lot of research before it became operational.
Linux used the old monolithic architecture that was known to work and that allowed them to get it operational earlier.
Once Linux was integrated into GNU, lots of developers decided to start working on Linux and here we are today.
You seem to have made the mistake in thinking that Linux would have gotten anywhere without GNU - it wouldn't, simply because GNU was the only thing that could properly supply the rest of the OS at the time.
I notice that you can't read!! First message; "And had GNU not existed, Linux would probably not have taken off."
@freemo
How lovely it is when the Pragmatist and the Ideologue hammer the nails.
1. "Linux" conquered the global mindshare, by a combination of coincidences, influences, agendas and possibly malignant actors. FSF/GNU messaging was (is?) weak.
2. GNU and Linux are both successes from the strengths of the other. GNU would probably have been dead by now, had Linux not showed up. And had GNU not existed, Linux would probably not have taken off.
Keep going! Enjoying this...
@Suiseiseki