The Linux Thread - The Autist's OS of Choice

  • 🔎 If you see an alert for analytics.usips.org, this is a self-hosted system I am running as a test. It is GDPR compliant and collects no invasive information.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
the only thing that really needs to be done is to allow applications to to be able to reference libraries and data in the same directory as the application, regardless of where that directory is in the file system.

After that application management becomes so much easier.
 
Betonhaus said:
the only thing that really needs to be done is to allow applications to to be able to reference libraries and data in the same directory as the application, regardless of where that directory is in the file system.

After that application management becomes so much easier.
Click to expand...
Beyond really basic programs that's not at all how this works, even something as simple as man pages falls apart immediately with this approach. Software/Application management is a fucking hard problem, even ignoring the standardization issues. The Windows solution is have the OS fully standardized and eternally-ish backwardscompatible-ish, have all the random installers do their own dependency bs and have users download software from random webpages. Which also sucks and isn't an option for linux. What you're describing is how some game engines do it. It's kinda like UTF-16, it sounds like a good compromise(if you're drunk and retarded) but it actually just combines the disadvantages of multiple approaches.
 
Waldimaxt said:
The only sane way of software distribution on Linux I know of that doesn't require lots of work and maintenance per supported distro is to distribute source. Which sucks. This is an unsolved problem.
Click to expand...
That's not really true though. Most software doesn't need to be up to date, it just needs security patches. The Devuan stable upgrade cycle is perfectly fine. For anything else, there's Devuan 'unstable'.

And for the one or two random things that do need to be kept up to date outside a normal distribution release cycle, gay static linking works great. Let's say you are running a stable distribution with a really old version of xeyes without the great new biblically accurate option.

1789787792326.png
Just download an AppImage for it, and as long as it's not packaged by retards it will work across basically anything including musl-based distributions. The guys who make non-retarded appimages even have their own package manager, soar, in case you need to get a cutting-edge new version with new eye configurations and don't want to compile from source (disclaimer- I haven't actually used it).
Install static binaries, AppImages, and other portable formats(AppBundle, FlatImage, RunImage, onelf, and more) on any Linux distribution.
Click to expand...
(Note: No gay ass Flakpak bullshit, only sensible static linking+extra steps)
 
Last edited:
I simply developed an aversion to Flatpaks after learning that Flathub runtimes are liable to go EOL, so what the fuck's the point of the extra overhead if I'm not guaranteed a copy of say... GTK2, Qt4/Qt5, or anything else along those lines? Oh sure, the Fedora Flatpaks initiative is genuinely appealing insofar as making sure that all runtimes are included within the singular Flatpak binary... but I have absolutely zero faith in the Fedora packaging team to put the same QA into Fedora Flatpaks that they put into the DNF repos for Fedora, RHEL, EPEL, and RPM Fusion. Has another monumental failure of incompetence with packaging in Fedora Flatpaks occurred, like what happened with OBS last year? Not to my knowledge, but I damn sure ain't eager to find out.
 
Just put everything a program needs into a single binary file, morons. It works on literally all systems regardless of OS.
 
Waldimaxt said:
there's also no consensus on what a "next-gen" standard should even look like
Click to expand...
Considering that Wayland was meant to be this "next-gen" standard designed to be future-proof and all that, it'd probably be even worse and even more over-engineered than Flatpak. FOSS devs seem to be incapable of making sane software design decisions, and honestly should be relegated to only writing code while more sane people design the software, then mandate which PR's should be fixed by the devs and which ones are a genuine WONTFIX/NOTABUG. But good luck with that.
 
⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛ said:
That's not really true though. Most software doesn't need to be up to date, it just needs security patches. The Devuan stable upgrade cycle is perfectly fine. For anything else, there's Devuan 'unstable'.
Click to expand...
That falls under requiring lots of work and maintenance per supported distro. You can't rely on the exact versions same versions of all your libraries being available on every distro, also you can't rely on every package maintainer enabling the same features. Depending to the libraries you need you may need to make your software work with multiple version-incompatible libraries depending of what each distro has. Even if your product falls under "most software" and you don't need to care about which version you're using, there's still a lot of packaging and making-sure-it-actually-works to do. For each distro and each major version thereof.
 
Lard Shart said:
This is the way. Sadly we won't see this happen in the realm of the Linux Desktop.
Click to expand...
It only really worked for Microsoft. They snatched great talent like Dave Cutler, got them to design an OS that is backwards compatible with MS-DOS, and witch each subsequent iteration they cared about making sure that they can keep as much backwards compatibility as possible. Fast forward to today and you can fire off executables from Windows 95 or Windows NT 3.1 on Windows 11 via WoW64 and they'll work.

Apple didn't give two shits about backwards compatibility, ever. They had multiple major architectural changes of their hardware and told developers to suck it and just rewrite their shit from PowerPC to x86, then from x86 to ARM. Any compatibility layers were only meant to soften the blow of these transitions as ultimately Apple doesn't give a shit about backwards compatibility and never did, but they're Apple, they can afford dictating everyone the terms.

Linux never had a chance at establishing a framework like that. It was a Unix-like, but that's about it. Even before the GNU revolution Unix was fractured to hell and back where even POSIX couldn't unify it, and with Linux and FreeBSD, OpenBSD, GNU Hurd and so on, things were as fractured as they were before. Add the lunacy of the ideologues that infested Linux's development and you'll just have to deal with every incompatibility that comes your way. glibc changed something so the ABI's are broken again and your programs fail to run? Just recompile from source! You don't have the source? Your fault! Linux's current "silver bullet" is establishing stronger compatibility for Win32, the only stable ABI on Linux, cuz well, like I said, no matter how much curry diarrhea got poured over Windows over the past decade or so, it still maintains solid Win32 backwards compatibility, and by building a compatibility layer for it on Linux, you get to harness that software ecosystem on top of the GNU one.

Meanwhile on Windows you have WSL so ironically as time goes on both Windows and Linux are more and more interchangeable, as far as the software compatibility is concerned. An operating system's first and foremost function is letting you run software that you need to do your job on the computer, and without the software, you don't have a worthwhile OS. So everybody wins in this arrangement, Wine/Proton and WSL are like a yin-yang of ABI cross-play that ensure that no matter which OS you use, you can run your software on it.
 
Battlefield42 said:
9
View attachment 9588474
Click to expand...
Damn, that is a pretty nicely set up T60, especially with the 64-bit Core 2 Duo that was pretty rare. Personally, I would always go with a 9 cell battery when replacing due to age, but I guess if you're using it plugged in mostly the little one might be fine. Not a big fan of the futa horsecock or Thunar (PCManFM is way better), but that's more of a personal preference thing.
 
acid_ra1n said:
steve jobs has once again returned to me from beyind the grave and bestowed upon me an old mac mini running a very old version of elementary OS
for now i put mint on it. its got 8gb ram and a sandy bridge i5 so not a huge score but fine to resell to some yahoo that just needs a computer.
Click to expand...

Forget the yahoo. Use it like a good mini PC. If the network card on that Mac mini is an Intel one, purge mint, put pfSense on it, and start redesigning your entire networking setup.
 
acid_ra1n said:
steve jobs has once again returned to me from beyind the grave and bestowed upon me an old mac mini running a very old version of elementary OS
for now i put mint on it. its got 8gb ram and a sandy bridge i5 so not a huge score but fine to resell to some yahoo that just needs a computer.
Click to expand...
Sandy Bridge is like 2nd generation i-series, isn’t it? Even if the Mac Mini has the i5-2520M it’s only about 50% more powerful than a really high end router, and likely wouldn’t be able to handle 1080p video playback well
 
Betonhaus said:
Sandy Bridge is like 2nd generation i-series, isn’t it? Even if the Mac Mini has the i5-2520M it’s only about 50% more powerful than a really high end router, and likely wouldn’t be able to handle 1080p video playback well
Click to expand...
The fuck are you talking about? I had a Power Mac G5 in 2005 and THAT machine could barely handle 1080p H264 playback and often stuttered.

Any Intel Mac mini in the past 15 years can handle it fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom