Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 5, 2014 3:01 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341)
In reply to: Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems by raven667
Parent article: Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Right, so "Specify the precise distro to use, or ship your own runtime with your app".

The de-duping thing seems tenuous to me, for the "ship your own runtime" case. What are the chances that two different application vendors happen to pick the exact same combination of compiler toolchain, compile flags and libraries necessary to give identical binaries?

Having a system to make it possible to run different applications, built against different "distros" (or runtimes), at the same time, running with the same root/config (/etc, /var) and /home seems good. Though, I am sceptical that:

a) There won't be configuration compatibility issues with different apps using slightly different versions of a dependency that reads some config in /home (ditto for /etc).

This kind of thing used to not be an issue, back when it was more common to share /home across different computers thanks to NFS, and application developers would get more complaints if they broke multi-version access. However $HOME sharing is rare these days, and I got sick a long time ago of, e.g., GNOME not dealing well with different versions accessing the same $HOME (non-concurrently!).

b) Sharing /var across different runtimes similarly is likely fraught with multi-version incompatibility issues.

It's ironic that shared (even non-concurrent) $HOME support got broken / neglected in Linux, and now it seems we need it to help solve the runtime-ABI proliferation problem of Linux. :)

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 5, 2014 3:03 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link] (2 responses)

It appears this discussion might be a relevant read

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-os-list/2014-Septem...

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 5, 2014 3:06 UTC (Fri) by martin.langhoff (subscriber, #61417) [Link] (1 responses)

If you are really going to lean on the de-dupe, then just ship the whole OS you need for your app and be done with it. Trust the magic pixie dust in the FS to de-dupe it all. Why do we have to burden the world with defining the part of the stack that is "base OS"?

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 5, 2014 3:11 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Not sure if the question is directed at me but potentially because it is not magic pixie dust and we would want to define a platform while allowing distributions to change things if needed at other layers.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 1:20 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] (10 responses)

"However $HOME sharing is rare these days, and I got sick a long time ago of, e.g., GNOME not dealing well with different versions accessing the same $HOME (non-concurrently!)."

That used to bother me too. I deleted GNOME. As GNOME is the source of the breakage (in this and so many other situations) that is the only sensible response. The herd instinct to embrace insanity instead, in order to keep GNOME (a process that is actually ongoing, and accelerating) is what I do not understand. Why are people so insistent on throwing away things that work and replacing them with things that do not?

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 10:14 UTC (Mon) by mchapman (subscriber, #66589) [Link] (9 responses)

> The herd instinct to embrace insanity instead, in order to keep GNOME (a process that is actually ongoing, and accelerating) is what I do not understand. Why are people so insistent on throwing away things that work and replacing them with things that do not?

What's there to understand? Clearly these people you're talking about are having a different experience with the software than you are. Why would you think your particular experience with it is canonical? Is it so hard to believe other people's experiences are different?

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 12:53 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] (8 responses)

That makes no sense. The objection to GNOME is broken, insane code. Are you seriously proposing that other people using GNOME are not using the same broken, insane code? If they were not they would not be using GNOME. You make no sense.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 13:18 UTC (Mon) by JGR (subscriber, #93631) [Link] (5 responses)

Other people using GNOME are mostly users. They're not going to look at the code itself, or really know or care if it could be described as insane and/or broken, as long as it meets their (often rather straightforward) use case.

Or to put it another way, not everyone necessarily shares your view of what is "broken" and what is not.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 14:07 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] (4 responses)

You're feeling around in the dark but you're not too far off.

This is a problem that affects the entire market for computers, worldwide. Markets work well when buyers and sellers are informed. Buyers of computer systems, on the other hand, are for the most part as far from well informed as imaginable. A market where the buyers do not understand the products well enough to make informed choices between competitors is a market which has problems. And Free Software is part of that larger market.

And that's what we see with GNOME. The example we were discussing above had to do with the $home directory. The GNOME devs simply refuse to even try to do it right. Since none of them used shared $home directories, they did not see the problem, and had no interest in fixing it. And here is where the broken market comes in - because there were enough end users who like the GNOME devs did not understand how $home works and how it is to be used who simply did not understand why they should care.

And that's how the breakage created by a cluster of ADD spreads out to tear down the ecosystem generally. That's the path the herd is on right now. Anything that your 13 year old doesnt want to take the time to understand - it' s gone or going. A few more years of this and we will have computing systems setting world records for potential power and actual uselessness simultaneously.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 15:03 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (3 responses)

> Since none of them used shared $home directories, they did not see the problem, and had no interest in fixing it. And here is where the broken market comes in - because there were enough end users who like the GNOME devs did not understand how $home works and how it is to be used who simply did not understand why they should care.

I'm not quite sure what your point here is... you're basically blaming GNOME for the fact that its users are uninformed, and further, it's also GNOME's fault because those same uninformed users don't know enough to care about a philosophical argument under the hood about a situation those same uninformed users will never actually encounter?

> And that's how the breakage created by a cluster of ADD spreads out to tear down the ecosystem generally.

Please, lay off on the ad honimem insults.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 16:17 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] (2 responses)

"I'm not quite sure what your point here is... you're basically blaming GNOME for the fact that its users are uninformed, and further, it's also GNOME's fault because those same uninformed users don't know enough to care about a philosophical argument under the hood about a situation those same uninformed users will never actually encounter?"

I was not assessing blame, I was simply making you aware of the progression of events.

"Please, lay off on the ad honimem insults."

Please, learn to distinguish between ad honimem(sic) insults and statements of fact you find inconvenient or embarrasing.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 17:20 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

Y> "..breakage created by a cluster of ADD.."

> Please, learn to distinguish between ad honimem(sic) insults and statements of fact you find inconvenient or embarrasing.

Personally, I would be embarrased(sic) if I was the one who considered the above a statement of fact, and petulantly pointed out a spelling error while making one of your own.

But hey, thanks for the chuckle.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 17:34 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

Petulance is entirely in your imagination, I guess that's your right, enjoy it.

The pattern of behavior from the GNOME project is indeed a fact, it's not disputable, the tracks are all over the internet and since it has been the same pattern for over a decade it certainly seems fair to expect it to continue. If you think you have an objection to that characterization that is legitimate, please feel free to put it forward concretely. Putting forward baseless personal accusations instead cuts no ice.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 14:12 UTC (Mon) by mchapman (subscriber, #66589) [Link] (1 responses)

> That makes no sense. The objection to GNOME is broken, insane code.

But that wasn't what you claimed used to bother you. You were talking about broken behaviour, not code. Now maybe GNOME's behaviour *is* broken, that sharing a $HOME between multiple versions doesn't work properly, and it's just because I don't do that that I've never noticed.

So I'm having trouble following your argument. Are you saying people shouldn't be supporting GNOME -- that the only sensible thing to do with it is uninstall it -- because there are *some* use cases that for *some* people don't work properly? That seems really unfair for everybody else.

Poettering: Revisiting how we put together Linux systems

Posted Sep 8, 2014 14:30 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

"You were talking about broken behaviour, not code."

A distinction with no difference. Behaviour is the result of code, and code is experienced as behaviour.

"Now maybe GNOME's behaviour *is* broken, that sharing a $HOME between multiple versions doesn't work properly, and it's just because I don't do that that I've never noticed."

That is correct, but also incomplete. Since GNOME screwed this up, they set a (bad) example that has been followed by others as well, and I am afraid today you will find so many commonly used programs have now emulated the breakage that it's widespread and this essential core OS feature is now practically defunct.

Of course YMMV, but in my universe, the damage done in this single, relatively small domain, done simply by not caring and setting a bad example and being followed by those who know no better, is orders of magnitude greater than their positive contributions. I am not trying to be mean I am simply being honest.