Login
You're viewing the discuss.systems public feed.
  • josefjk@mastodon.social
    Oct 14, 2026, 8:57 PM

    one of the things i still don't understand about like, the linux ecosystem or whatever. that kind of culture. why is it set up so that everybody's time is all spent packaging and repackaging duplicate versions of software that isn't even their software, not actually writing software, but package-managing the packages that were packaged by their package maintainers, who are arguing about what software they're packaging and how and why they're packaging it. it just seems really tedious and boring

    💬 6🔄 0⭐ 0

Replies

  • josefjk@mastodon.social
    Oct 14, 2026, 9:00 PM

    cant they just compile the program and statically link it. then when you want to run the program you can download it and run it. thats what i do on windows. you can make Program.exe, you can just make the program. if someone wants to edit the program you can give them Program_src.zip and that could contain, perhaps, all the source code needed to build the program, since text isn't very large on a computer, and a script called "compile.bat" or perhaps even "compile.sh" to compile it

    💬 3🔄 0⭐ 0
  • technomancytechnomancy@hey.hagelb.org
    Oct 14, 2026, 8:58 PM

    @jk in theory it's so that packagers can put the user's interests ahead of the developers interests and strip out spyware and antifeatures and other shit, but since everyone decided packagers were a waste of time now we get slop right in the face all day every day

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • ɗ𐐩ʃƕρʋdeshipu@fosstodon.org
    Oct 14, 2026, 9:15 PM

    @jk It's somewhat more tricky to fix known security issues in a statically compiled binary created five years ago with random library versions, though the "modern" runtimes like Rust certainly move in that direction. Compile.bat is these days called Makefile and mostly works, there are whole distros based on the concept, but you still need someone to make trivial fixes for newer dependency versions.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Amy Pillowamy@ice.ch3.st
    Oct 14, 2026, 9:19 PM

    @jk@mastodon.social it's precisely because they rely on each other, and work together to create a functioning system, whereas exe's and statically linked binaries are isolated.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Nathan :ver: :aro: :pride:nathan@e4b4.eu
    Oct 14, 2026, 11:34 PM

    @jk the preference for dynamic linking is cultural. when software is open-source by default you don't *need* static linking. and dynamic linking is marginally better by nerd standards (memory, security, hackability).

    a less obvious side-effect is "Linux doesn't have a stable ABI". which is true. it's a PITA in some ways, but in other ways it does enable things that are unthinkable in windows land, like completely dumping 32 bit support*

    (*unless you need Steam or niche proprietary software)

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • Ken Milmorekbm0@mastodon.social
    Oct 14, 2026, 9:23 PM

    @pearfalse @jk That sort of accusation only works when levelled at projects like the kernel which are large and well funded and now gate-kept by well-remunerated "elites". But most of the history of open source has been enthusiasts and academics writing code for themselves to scratch their own itches. There is no obligation to work hard for free, to make stuff that "users", ie other people, might want. A lot of important projects still rely entirely on unpaid volunteers.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • josefjk@mastodon.social
    Oct 14, 2026, 9:31 PM

    @kbm0 @pearfalse yeah I think in general the people that make Linux and Linux Distros are nice people to some extent. maybe a bit silly. but nice people. when they do something bad it’s stupidity rather than malice. the main problem is just that the entire thing is completely structurally fucked

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Ken Milmorekbm0@mastodon.social
    Oct 14, 2026, 9:37 PM

    @jk @pearfalse I'd say most large human endeavours are structurallly fucked. If you see inside a lot of corporate software products you'll find a lot of them are a badly maintained mess. Open source does it's dirty laundry in public but overall the quality is higher, believe me.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Ken Milmorekbm0@mastodon.social
    Oct 14, 2026, 9:33 PM

    @jk It's not in anyone's interests to have a monoculture where binary blobs pass as software; that is what we have with proprietary operating systems like Windows and it sucks. The fact that there are different Unix platforms with different kernels and slightly different userland APIs is arguably one of the things that has kept Open Source open. What's good for software freedom and maintainability isn't necessarily convenient for users in the short term, but helps resist enshittification.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • an actual busrenardboy@mastodon.social
    Oct 14, 2026, 11:59 PM

    @jk Dynamic linking is good for security. You can have some old-ass program that hasn't gotten updates in years, but if it dynamically links to openssl, it's still running modern security.

    To your larger point, open source gives people options, and when people have options they disagree on which they should choose, so they go their own way.

    Sometimes it's because they have too much time on their hands, sometimes it's because they have good ideas, and those ripple into the wider culture.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Bobby Mosstrechnex@mastodonapp.uk
    Oct 15, 2026, 8:01 AM

    @jk I think it’s probably a historical hangover from when people used to install their distro and packages from CD-ROMs.

    It stuck around past that because every component of the system is a package and there were good arguments to be made in favour of downloading all your packages from one trusted source that also tested them on the same system you’re using, rather than downloading installers from any number of untrusted & untested sources.

    I think that argument probably started to break down with the proliferation of PPAs, Flatpaks, AppImages, etc which are essentially solutions for people that want to cut out the maintainers and get their software directly from the developer like Windows users do. And now Steam just carpet bombs Linux systems with binary blobs as well.

    I think the BSD ecosystem’s decision to not treat every component of the operating system as a package was probably the right call and they’ve also done a better job of managing how software is installed imho.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • josefjk@mastodon.social
    Oct 15, 2026, 8:05 AM

    @trechnex i think it's actually probably a hangover from when "computer system" was the size of one or multiple fridges which would be delivered on a lorry and installed by a team of technicians from the computer company, who would also install the software into the system. the complete system was the hardware and the software packages, provided by DEC or IBM or ICL or whoever, so there wasn't much separation between OS and other software, it was just 'the configured system'

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0