Why not? It always seemed to me like a lot of duplicated work to package everything on every distro.
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2023
543 points (93.9% liked)
linuxmemes
20880 readers
7 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yes, but each package manager has it's (dis-)advantages. It's great to have flatpak and docker to be able to run software on almost all distros, but the OS still needs a way to update.
Almost all immutable distros use multiple package manager.
- Fedora Silverblue: rpm-ostree + flatpak (+ toolbox)
- OpenSUSE MicroOS: zypper with snapshots (transactional-update) + flatpak (+ distrobox)
- NixOS is unique since it only uses the Nix package manager
- immutable Ubuntu will probably only use snap for OS + apps.
All those OS support distrobox and docker additionally.
NixOS is unique because it uses the only potent package manager (if we don't count that one reimplementation of Nix). Calling the others "package managers" becomes mostly a courtesy when NixOS enters the picture.
lalala with FS-level snapshots + flatpak + distrobox + a kitchen sink
look_what_they_need_to_mimic_the_fraction_of_our_power.png
I don't consider myself a dumb person but I couldn't figure out nix when last I decided to play with it. Theoretically it seems super interesting to me, but I really just can't dedicate the time again now to learn that esoteric syntax.
The docs for NixOS aren't good. Much knowledge is on many blogs but who knows them all?
Having the OS defined declaratively is great but I also dislike the Nix language.
Once it's setup NixOS is great. Sharing configs with PC and laptop is awesome. Rollbacks are baked in.
Going off the https://github.com/Misterio77/nix-starter-configs helped me gettung started.
I absolutely loved NixOS on paper, and it's undoubtedly the best way to combat updates that break my dependency trees, but I still found myself spending a majority of my time attempting to hard-code various app configuration files into my convoluted configuration.nix with its esoteric syntax rather than actually using my computer. Am I missing something, or does a good install script covering my favorite packages and a git bare repo storing my dot-files get me 90% of the way there without the hassle of bending my whole OS around a single nix config monstrosity?
Agreed, I'm also considering switching to an install script + btrfs snapshots. It worked quite well a few years ago, altough it doesn't solve configuration drift.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
You can use at least appimage with NixOS...
You cah also tow a Tesla with a couple of horses
And flatpak
load more comments
(1 replies)
Linked dependencies, for one. What if your distro uses uClibc? A different imagemagick version? What about LTS distros? Immutable distros?
What if who cares?
When I used to build app packages internally I also built packages for our own python and ruby versions for our in-house software. The motto was: “system packages are for system software”. We weren’t writing system software, we were writing business software and shipping it, so why be dependent on what Redhat or Debian provided?
Universal packages are just an extension of this philosophy, and is why things like docker and app stores are such a success. Burdening the user with getting system dependencies right is worse than the DLL hell of the old windows days.
Docker is a success in some ways, but it's not a silver bullet. It's a great way to make a 800 KiB program ship in a complex 300 MiB box.
If you had an entire operating system built with static links, it would be giant and ugly. You have to stop and think: if it's such a great idea, then why does pretty much every distro supply packages with dynamic links?
When shipping your own software, yes, you certainly want control over your own runtime. If you rely on an OS-supplied Ruby, for example, then when Ruby 3.3.0 comes out, your gems will need to be rebuilt, and it'll happen by surprise. A runtime and shipping stuff to your own infra is much different than packages responsible for running the operating system.
It's almost a silver bullet. 300mb is pretty modest by today's standards, and nix supports both bare metal and docker containers, and everything in between
Seems to me we need to bridge that gap - make nix smarter and more compatible with docker, and we get a fully featured desktop/dev environment that can be packaged directly into the minimal reproducible deployment package
And that sounds like a silver bullet to me
Yeah, there is definitely a delineation between system and user, and like most things the line will be fuzzy.
But in that end-user software space, 300mb is a pittance to pay for a minor system package update not breaking their favorite application, or a user not being able to use software because their distro is one version behind on libfoo.
Imagine a world where people say "I would use Linux, but I'm going to stay with Windows because Linux is too bloated."
I don't know where the recent surge of not wanting package dependencies is coming from. Folks even not wanting dynamic links. We're acting like Linux distros are somehow suddenly broken or impossible to maintain, yet there are hundreds of successful distros doing just that, and for decades.
load more comments
(2 replies)
There's another aspect than size that I feel people overlook: security updates. When e.g. libcurl is duplicated in a million places, how do you update them all when a critical security issue is discovered in it? Who will update all the random flatpaks, snaps and docker images that happen to include it?
Usually people mean flatpak and other desktop-focused formats when talking about universal package formats.
Even docker images are usually built with traditionial package managers, except if they're built directly by Nix.
I agree that there won't be "the" package format, since they all have their tradeoffs. E.g. Nix updates need quite a bit of memory, so it isn't a good choice for resource constrained embedded use-cases.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Flatpak seems quite nice now days
Fine. You can do what you want but for me personally I will just use flatpak.
Oh no, apps directly from the developers, the horrors
Flatpak with OSTree or ABroot, the future is now. Although it would be nice if Silverblue would automatically create a container and install non-flatpak apps into it, then add desktop.ini files automatically:
bad take, from a user AND developer standpoint
i don't agree with your takes but i love your spirit. also lol that image filename
Mate I use flatpak too it's a meme I reposted not created
Least helpful debugging duck.
How you make the duck?
The is not the question you should be asking.
You should be asking how they got a video of me before I ever sent it to anyone…
What about cosmopolitan? https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan
Hey that's pretty good, thanks!
Is it used for any serious apps? I saw they released the "cosmos" which is very impressive but mostly seemed like basic utils that were already available in Linux/Mac?
This is essential for the year of the Linux desktop to come.
50 years and counting.
Any day now...
32 years, Linux ain't THAT old
I see how it can be convenient for some distros to get the latest version or install something that is not in the official repo.
But I use ArchLinux and we always have latest versions and big repo + AUR, so I never used universal packages.
laughs in emerge
laughs in immediate firefox updates
laughs in clang updates
laughs in snapd
I nominate nix
view more: next ›