Ubuntu has finally solved the problems of package managers

>>45506277
>Are you glad that Ubuntu has finally solved the problems of package managers, /g/?
Pacman solved that problem years ago.

I thought pacman was the best package manager

>>45506277
jesus

so they turned packages into msi installers?

why?

I'm afraid. I think Canonical is aiming to make Ubuntu nonfree software friendly...

File: 1310418729617[1].jpg (26KB, 190x170px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 190x170px

>Clicks, by design, can't express any external dependencies other than a base system (called a 'framework').
>That means that if your app depends on a fancy library that isn't shipped by default, you just bundle it into the Click package and you're set.

Oh boy I can't wait to have 400 identical instances of GTK/Qt/ncurses/etc clogging up my hdd!

This is innovation! This has revolutionized bloat!

>>45506333
Everyone is non-free 'software friendly' except Fedora for business reasons and debian for autism reasons

>"Clicks, by design, can't express any external dependencies other than a base system (called a 'framework'). That means that if your app depends on a fancy library that isn't shipped by default, you just bundle it into the Click package and you're set. You get to update it whenever it suits you as a developer, and have predictability over how it will run on a user's computer (or device!). That opens up the possibility of shipping newer versions of a library, or just sticking with one that works for you."

That's Winsxs in a nutshell. Canonical is trying to turn the neat package management of Linux into a windows-like abomination.

What problem did they solve? I thought shared libraries was a good thing.

Imagine if canonical used its resources to improve things that exist instead or reinventing the wheel all the time

>>45506371
It's great, until you want to run a program that doesn't support the glibc version you've got installed.

>>45506302
I'm pretty sure even aptitude does this too. apt-get install --fix-missing will resolve unmet dependencies.

>>45506396
Then update glibc. If maintainers/programmers did their jobs right then nothing that works on older versions won't work on newer ones.

>>45506396
This still doesn't solve that problem well. Now if you have 8 applications using glibc version A and 4 using version B you now essentially have 12 copies of glibc just sitting on your harddrive, where you could've done with 2.

>>45506424
>Then update glibc
Congratulations, you've just broke half your system!

>If maintainers/programmers did their jobs right then nothing that works on older versions won't work on newer ones.

Yeah, because glibc doesn't back backwards compatibility almost every update, nope!

>>45506447
>you now essentially have 12 copies of glibc just sitting on your harddrive
So?

>>45506333
Not exactly; more like they're making something akin to OSX's .app packaging. Which is still a spectacularly stupid idea.

>>45506498
So now there's a security hole in glibc and you need to update. Enjoy having 12 different copies to patch.

>>45506507
But look at all these people doing the same shit with fucking docker and co. It's the hip thing to do in the modern webdev age!

>>45506508
>Enjoy having 12 different copies to patch.
I don't need to patch shit, what are you talking about?

I'm pretty sure the nightmare will continue until everything is statically linked and dependencies only exist for shitty perl/python/ruby scripts.

>but if a bug appears in the part of the library it uses...
It's open source, right? Just recompile it against the new lib.

>>45506508
>So now there's a security hole in glibc
This shit runs in underland, they could privilege escalate to... the user they just ran the exploit from.

>>45506333
>nonfree software friendly

It was always nonfree software friendly

Making a PPA isn't exactly hard

>>45506550
hurr durr how do hypothetical examples work

This isn't going to be statically linked linux!
this is going to be dll hell.

>click package is dynamically linked against some libs in the standard base
>and to some libs it distributes in whole with itself
>it may have patched versions of base libs in its entirety

Remember how you had a thousand dx99.dlls on windows? This is that.

>>45506508
>a security hole in glibc

You could avoid this by using terse, clean, professionally made and maintained code instead of bloated GNU shit.

>>45506578
>It's trendy to hate on gnu now

I think that this is good for very specific types of applications such as games. Otherwise it's rather useless.

>>45506561
Your hypothetical example doesn't make any sense at all, in fact your hypothetical example is entirely avoidable because the programs are statically linked.

>>45506350
b-but that's what winfags do and they seem happy with 40GB WinSxS folders,
so it should be ok for us too.

>>45506584
It has always been trendy to hate on the "at least it's free!" alternative

>There are people that praise bash when it's a very low quality ksh clone

>>45506602
>low quality ksh clone
Have you used ksh?

Oh my fucking god I am so pissed.

THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS IN LINUX THAT ACTUALLY ARE NIGHTMARES

FUCKING PACKAGE MANAGERS ARE NOT

jesus christ canonical FUCKING EVERYTHING UP
as usual.

>>45506350
>>45506595
You realize windows is inherently dynamically linked exactly the same as Linux right? Which is why it suffered from the same problem, Dependency hell.

>>45506350
>whole copies of libs

That's not how static linking works

But maybe if gtk/qt/etc were lighter...

>>45506611
As a language? It's great. As a shell? It has something like readline now with all the same tab completion facilities as bash and it's still smaller and faster than the GNU/shit shell.

>>45506622
And they solved it in a very, very different way.

>>45506625
It's not static linking though.

It's literally packaging the entire library in with the application.

>>45506628
Microsoft/Windows didn't actually solve it, the problem was never their fault, It was caused by improper packaging, no different from Linux.

>>45506625
>All the same tab completion facilities as bash
Please, it's nowhere near as good as bash for this shit, not to mention it just got it, as opposed to bash having good tab completion for ages.

You're just hating on gnu because it's trendy.

>Ubuntu is the most used Linux operating system

stopped reading there, RHEL is the most used GNU/Linux system.

>nightmare
Anyone that believes this shit is fucking retarded or has bought into the retardation. I think even Linus has which is fucking sad.

How is it a nightmare to fucking SHARE DEPENDENCIES? Oh boo hoo, when someone updates their library you have to rebuild the programs that depend on it, cry me a fucking river.

>>45506646
I don't really feel like going into this, but regardless of whose at fault, it's a very very different result.

so wait, what are they trying to fix? is there some bug or a process that is too tedious? i have not had any problems with packages on ubuntu.

>>45506647
Yes it is, and bash's tab completion is so fucking horrible and primitive that it might as well not exist

Which explains why competent programmers were able to implement it without bloating up the shell too badly

>>45506674
It's not.
If you wanted a good example for a shell, you could have used zsh.

>>45506682
zsh is literally bash with a bunch of shit hacked on.

>>45506696
No, zsh is literally ksh with a bunch of fancy line editing and unused features tacked on.

Ksh is good for running scripts
bash is not

Ksh is not good for interactive use
neither is bash

>>45506654
what this nigga said.

I don't want half my 120 GB ssd being taken up by copies of fucking libs like some retarded winfaggot.

Wouldn't it be better to fix glibc instead??? Every time you fix things for bad programmers then you allow bad practices.
A package manager should do three things:
./configure
make
make install

If we have the same CPU architecture then it is cool if they just hand me the binary and it can skip the first two steps.

>>45506741
>implying I have time to make firefox or some other monolithic software.

Gentoo user plz.

>>45506741
>If we have the same CPU architecture then it is cool if they just hand me the binary and it can skip the first two steps.

You've solved fucking nothing, you're still running into the exact same problem of your software being compiled against another system.

>>45506762
Or manually fetch it's dependencies.

>start telling people to avoid Ubuntu and that it's harmful, recommend Debian as an alternative
>Ubuntu/Canonical continue fucking up HARD
>I feel like I'm doing a little good for the world

>>45506827
>harmful

stop using that term

What do you recommend anyway?

>>45506775

just because it's compiled from source doesn't mean you can't have automatic dependency resolution

see: gentoo, the aur

>pacman -S <program name>
Gee thanks, Canonical. You sure saved me from a lot of trouble.

>>45506844
>trying to censor/oppress me
Don't tell me what words to say, that's not even funny.

>What do you recommend anyway?
I'm usually a nice person, but I'm gonna draw the line today. Re-read my fucking post where I already said so.

>>45506775
well slackware fags are worse, I agree.

>>45506895
SJW detected.

>>45506895
I stopped reading at harmful, sorry. Debian blows too

>>45506905
I'm actually misogynistic as fuck and hate SJWs. I'm very serious about my hatred toward censorship, but I guess you could say I was partially baiting by using the word oppress.

>>45506923
>Debian blows too
Not really.. None of the problems I experience on Ubuntu are present on Debian.

>>45506507
Why is it stupid? Yeah, you lose maybe 300MB or so to redundant libraries on a system that has a shitload of applications installed, but everything fucking works for everyone with zero effort because the bundled libraries are precisely the version and build the developer developed with.

If Linux distributions used .app-style packaging it'd make a lot of the distro-specific problems that pop up with applications simply vanish.

If you're really worried about that little bit of disk space it'd be better to push for consumer adoption of filesystems that support block level deduplication.

>>45506447
would be neat if the package manager could install versions A and B from 2 applications that provide them and then simply link the remaining applications to those 2 copies

>>45506959
why should I support developer laziness at the cost of bloating my shit for no good reason?

File: Screen Shot 2014-11-26 at 3.50.07 pm.png (368KB, 509x538px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 509x538px

>want shitnux to gain market share
>go into autistic rage when canonical FINALLY creates a file extension for executable and installer wizards
>MUH SEKRET CLUB IS UNDER A TAC
>expecting people to learn hacker codes to install knock off software from the command line

Looks like you'll have to find a new hipster OS like Haiku.

>>45506578
>calls it terse, clean code
>can't see the code because it's closed
We all tell ourselves lies to help us deal with the ugly truths, yours just happens to be blatantly retarded.

>>45506959

please tell me what these "problems" are with dynamic linking, because you just keep repeating that there are problems with it over and over without actually naming any

>sudo apt-get package
>packaging nightmare

>>45506396
Nix is package management done right

>>45506991
>implying

Canonical is just going to be ignored like when they pushed Mir.

I'd only start worrying if Red Hat picks this retarded shit up.

>>45506998
the problem is that is forces devs to actually make changes to their code once in awhile to prevent it from being obsolete.

as long as this stays within canonicals trash heap i'm fine with it

making linux packages more like windows installers is a big step backwards

>>45507006
Nix is basically the exact same shit as "Clock packages" with a ports system hacked on... so you're right.

>>45506946
>>45506905
VIRGIN FIGHT!!!!

>>45506991

cringed so hard at your post

seriously kid, this facade of le ebin oldfag genius that used "loonix XD" for centuries before switching back the le superiour windows just doesn't hold up, everyone can see through it, just stop

when you grow up you'd look back on these posts and cringe just as hard as we are