The Biggest Failure Of Linux Is Package Management DistroTube
video description
Date: 2022-03-30
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Thomas
-Warning: Long comment ahead.- By reading through the comments I saw many people complaining that standards harm the diversity of software or just the diversity of solutions to problems. Some people even compared standards to proprietary software by saying things like -If you want one standard way to do something just go back to Windows or Mac-. As someone who is transitioning away from Windows towards Linux, and who is therefore -pretty new to the Linux ecosystem and to FOSS,- I wanted to give my view on this stance, like a (mostly) outside perspective:
-Standard doesn't mean proprietary,- that's a complete -leap of logic- and if anything standards came about because companies just can't help but create and push competing incompatible solutions to the same problem that are just a pain in the butt for everyone. Having said that, I honestly don't understand why people seem to demonise standards by comparing them to Windows or Mac, the two have nothing to do with each other.-
-Standards are good because they make collaboration and interoperability much easier- than having tens of competing incompatible ways to do the same thing. I am in the process of ditching Windows for Linux because I am starting to detest proprietary crap more and more and Windows is just a bad OS, proprietary or not, but -I still care about things being somewhat coherent- and not all over the place, that's -not incompatible with embracing diversity- and openness. Beside, having to learn about so many different things to accomplish the basic task of installing software is really -detrimental to getting into Linux- for an outsider wanting for a better solution than Windows, it's a -confusing and steep learning process,- and I don't know if it's necessary or helpfull. If anything, having -an agreed upon way to distribute software would encourage diversity- more because distributing novel and alternate solutions to one problem would be facilitated.-
-Diversity is important- and allways will be, and that applies to package management naturally, -but it can also be a pain if it leads to a mess,- and sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time, -agreeing on a solution is also important.- Sometimes you have to make compromises on things for them to be practical, -there is no one-size-fits-all approach- and single-mindedly sticking to only one of them is not wise in my opinion. Having an agreed way to package software and manage these packages -doesn't mean the end of all diversity,- it's not even a step towards that, package management is such a small part of the huge machinery that is the Linux ecosystem. Diversity is precious, but -software availability is just as important,- there are many package management systems that don't have a lot of software packaged because they are relatively recent, only have a small developer base behind them, or because there are already other systems with much more software packaged.-
Beside, the whole proliferation of package management systems is -more of a pain in the ass for software devs- who have to grapple with all these different standards, knowing that they can't realistically deal with all of them but also that choosing one over the others means depriving some users of their software. I don't know about you but as a user, -beside being FOSS, working, and having good software availability, I couldn't care less what package manager or package format I use.- I mean as a user who installs and use packages, what difference is it gonna make if said package is a .deb installed with apt, or a .tar.gz installed with paman?
I'm still new to Linux, but it is already incredibly obvious how much -fanboyism- there is in the comunity, and I really think it's -harmfull- and another big thing -holding things back.- People fanboying about one format or standard or what have you just -gets in the way of seeing software and formats for what they are: tools.- If a tool is more complicated than it needs to be or if it doens't work like it should, or if it isn't usefull at all, then it's no good. Fanboyism just gets in the way of a coolheaded, rational perspective because -people are more invested in seing whatever it is they unconditionnally support -win- than in having a solution that works for everyone.- As someone who is still new to the Linux ecosystem, I believe I am -mostly- free from this bias (yet), so I thought I would share my 2 cents on the matter.
reply
-Warning: Long comment ahead.- By reading through the comments I saw many people complaining that standards harm the diversity of software or just the diversity of solutions to problems. Some people even compared standards to proprietary software by saying things like -If you want one standard way to do something just go back to Windows or Mac-. As someone who is transitioning away from Windows towards Linux, and who is therefore -pretty new to the Linux ecosystem and to FOSS,- I wanted to give my view on this stance, like a (mostly) outside perspective:
-Standard doesn't mean proprietary,- that's a complete -leap of logic- and if anything standards came about because companies just can't help but create and push competing incompatible solutions to the same problem that are just a pain in the butt for everyone. Having said that, I honestly don't understand why people seem to demonise standards by comparing them to Windows or Mac, the two have nothing to do with each other.-
-Standards are good because they make collaboration and interoperability much easier- than having tens of competing incompatible ways to do the same thing. I am in the process of ditching Windows for Linux because I am starting to detest proprietary crap more and more and Windows is just a bad OS, proprietary or not, but -I still care about things being somewhat coherent- and not all over the place, that's -not incompatible with embracing diversity- and openness. Beside, having to learn about so many different things to accomplish the basic task of installing software is really -detrimental to getting into Linux- for an outsider wanting for a better solution than Windows, it's a -confusing and steep learning process,- and I don't know if it's necessary or helpfull. If anything, having -an agreed upon way to distribute software would encourage diversity- more because distributing novel and alternate solutions to one problem would be facilitated.-
-Diversity is important- and allways will be, and that applies to package management naturally, -but it can also be a pain if it leads to a mess,- and sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it at the same time, -agreeing on a solution is also important.- Sometimes you have to make compromises on things for them to be practical, -there is no one-size-fits-all approach- and single-mindedly sticking to only one of them is not wise in my opinion. Having an agreed way to package software and manage these packages -doesn't mean the end of all diversity,- it's not even a step towards that, package management is such a small part of the huge machinery that is the Linux ecosystem. Diversity is precious, but -software availability is just as important,- there are many package management systems that don't have a lot of software packaged because they are relatively recent, only have a small developer base behind them, or because there are already other systems with much more software packaged.-
Beside, the whole proliferation of package management systems is -more of a pain in the ass for software devs- who have to grapple with all these different standards, knowing that they can't realistically deal with all of them but also that choosing one over the others means depriving some users of their software. I don't know about you but as a user, -beside being FOSS, working, and having good software availability, I couldn't care less what package manager or package format I use.- I mean as a user who installs and use packages, what difference is it gonna make if said package is a .deb installed with apt, or a .tar.gz installed with paman?
I'm still new to Linux, but it is already incredibly obvious how much -fanboyism- there is in the comunity, and I really think it's -harmfull- and another big thing -holding things back.- People fanboying about one format or standard or what have you just -gets in the way of seeing software and formats for what they are: tools.- If a tool is more complicated than it needs to be or if it doens't work like it should, or if it isn't usefull at all, then it's no good. Fanboyism just gets in the way of a coolheaded, rational perspective because -people are more invested in seing whatever it is they unconditionnally support -win- than in having a solution that works for everyone.- As someone who is still new to the Linux ecosystem, I believe I am -mostly- free from this bias (yet), so I thought I would share my 2 cents on the matter.
reply
Robert
The reason for so many is a complex one in a Sense it's one of the ways to make sure your is is yours belt being different.
Linux in its self is not a OS it's the back end of an OS.
And the bigger reason is that each package Manager in its self is complex so you have a binary and you want one that has more features such as safety speed and reliability you need to make one.
The standard debain is great but it's old and does not work well it has many safety issues and it can be slow.
Microsoft changes it's system often as well.
It's just that they keep that same core extension so no one notices it.
So imagine how hard it would be to have 10's of 1000s companies agree on a standard who will keep that one up to date who will have say and how it goes plus for OS's that are for older machines how will they fall in because the newer one will not support their old systems what then.
If linus torvalds and his -team- were to make one it would be easier but it's a lot of work that they do not have time of energy for.
Plus different machines would need different things.
Look at Android it has its one google has to have one because of the platform.
Each distros is its own OS.
Try telling apple and Microsoft to have one system so people can use the same software.
It would be impossible.
reply
The reason for so many is a complex one in a Sense it's one of the ways to make sure your is is yours belt being different.
Linux in its self is not a OS it's the back end of an OS.
And the bigger reason is that each package Manager in its self is complex so you have a binary and you want one that has more features such as safety speed and reliability you need to make one.
The standard debain is great but it's old and does not work well it has many safety issues and it can be slow.
Microsoft changes it's system often as well.
It's just that they keep that same core extension so no one notices it.
So imagine how hard it would be to have 10's of 1000s companies agree on a standard who will keep that one up to date who will have say and how it goes plus for OS's that are for older machines how will they fall in because the newer one will not support their old systems what then.
If linus torvalds and his -team- were to make one it would be easier but it's a lot of work that they do not have time of energy for.
Plus different machines would need different things.
Look at Android it has its one google has to have one because of the platform.
Each distros is its own OS.
Try telling apple and Microsoft to have one system so people can use the same software.
It would be impossible.
reply
Red
i understand choice but i dont' get why there should be a trillion different distros if there -custom- made from debian and arch. i understand enough that these other distros use the most recent or most stable. but why i feel like debian and arch should have 2 ISO's 1 long term use and 1 current -rolling- iso so either use A (deb) B (arch) C (windows) it would be alot easier. as many packages and how many online programs there is. if debian was like arch and you could just download and install only what you wanted that be amazing. (i also understand that if these like manjaro and ubuntu and popos) wasn't created we wouldn't have these programs but i agree i kinda feel like there should be a standard to look at.
but i also think the main problem is hardware.........there's way to much hardware out there as -choice- also theres like constantly new gpu's cpu's all kinds of stuff put out every single year i feel like things should not release every year i think the world in general is full of bloat not just the internet and everythings gotten out of hand.
reply
i understand choice but i dont' get why there should be a trillion different distros if there -custom- made from debian and arch. i understand enough that these other distros use the most recent or most stable. but why i feel like debian and arch should have 2 ISO's 1 long term use and 1 current -rolling- iso so either use A (deb) B (arch) C (windows) it would be alot easier. as many packages and how many online programs there is. if debian was like arch and you could just download and install only what you wanted that be amazing. (i also understand that if these like manjaro and ubuntu and popos) wasn't created we wouldn't have these programs but i agree i kinda feel like there should be a standard to look at.
but i also think the main problem is hardware.........there's way to much hardware out there as -choice- also theres like constantly new gpu's cpu's all kinds of stuff put out every single year i feel like things should not release every year i think the world in general is full of bloat not just the internet and everythings gotten out of hand.
reply
Hoefkens
correct me if i'm wrong here but(might be a case of misplaced nostalgia), but back when package management was a real nightmare (RH8.0 Psyche) and trying to install any and every package would send you straight into depency hell, half the packages i intalled were probably from a source tarbal (./configure make && make install) and somehow after some trial and error the rpm i tried to install orriginally would install as all the depencies were on the sytem, a package manager like pacman , seems completely unaware of whats on the system but for what is in it's -what i installed- database, and even if the depency is already on the disk (manually installed) if the files happen to be inthe same place as pacman wants to put its files it start whining. dunno maybe managers used to check for the actual package being on the disk and run a version check on it instead of a quick lookup in the -installed packages list-
reply
correct me if i'm wrong here but(might be a case of misplaced nostalgia), but back when package management was a real nightmare (RH8.0 Psyche) and trying to install any and every package would send you straight into depency hell, half the packages i intalled were probably from a source tarbal (./configure make && make install) and somehow after some trial and error the rpm i tried to install orriginally would install as all the depencies were on the sytem, a package manager like pacman , seems completely unaware of whats on the system but for what is in it's -what i installed- database, and even if the depency is already on the disk (manually installed) if the files happen to be inthe same place as pacman wants to put its files it start whining. dunno maybe managers used to check for the actual package being on the disk and run a version check on it instead of a quick lookup in the -installed packages list-
reply
Hans
I think package management is not the issue. Windows is pretty successful on the desktop and it didn-t have package management for most of the time it-s been around.
I think the problem is that diversity has its price. Linux is all about having a choice. Having the choice which distro, package manager, desktop environment, which boot loader you want, having the choice which init system.
This is also the reason why everyone goes crazy about systemd. Snap and gnome depend on it so much, that you don-t have a choice anymore.
After all, having a choice comes with the price of diversification. Boy have I sometimes imagined what we could achieve if all the developing power would go into one DE instead of splitting it up and developing KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Cinnamon, LXDE and so on and so on.
But then again, as a gnome user I would be quite pissed if the choice would be KDE then.
reply
I think package management is not the issue. Windows is pretty successful on the desktop and it didn-t have package management for most of the time it-s been around.
I think the problem is that diversity has its price. Linux is all about having a choice. Having the choice which distro, package manager, desktop environment, which boot loader you want, having the choice which init system.
This is also the reason why everyone goes crazy about systemd. Snap and gnome depend on it so much, that you don-t have a choice anymore.
After all, having a choice comes with the price of diversification. Boy have I sometimes imagined what we could achieve if all the developing power would go into one DE instead of splitting it up and developing KDE, Gnome, XFCE, Cinnamon, LXDE and so on and so on.
But then again, as a gnome user I would be quite pissed if the choice would be KDE then.
reply
KT
Linux elitists prefer having choice rather than having something good and standardized. Every week, something is being forked because someone has a tiny nitpick about something insignificant, so they want to make and distribute their own version under a new name probably with all of its own commands to learn.
Probably a sick twisted equivocation would be to compare the constant forking and screaming about choice to people who refuse to believe scientists about deadly diseases. They prefer to make their own choice and die rather than follow the wisdom of people smarter than them and help make the world a better place.
reply
Linux elitists prefer having choice rather than having something good and standardized. Every week, something is being forked because someone has a tiny nitpick about something insignificant, so they want to make and distribute their own version under a new name probably with all of its own commands to learn.
Probably a sick twisted equivocation would be to compare the constant forking and screaming about choice to people who refuse to believe scientists about deadly diseases. They prefer to make their own choice and die rather than follow the wisdom of people smarter than them and help make the world a better place.
reply
Prometheus720
I agree with you, but at the same time I think about windows and MacOS.
If Linux as a whole could steal just all the development time that goes into MacOS, it would currently be dominating windows. Wayland would be solved or replaced by now, pipework would be fine, we'd have found a way to make package manifests usable on multiple systems by now, wine would have been a long-solved problem, etc. Even without all of the community fragmentation stuff.
What is most important is pulling users into Linux as a whole, and whatever system does that will benefit the entire ecosystem as a whole.
reply
I agree with you, but at the same time I think about windows and MacOS.
If Linux as a whole could steal just all the development time that goes into MacOS, it would currently be dominating windows. Wayland would be solved or replaced by now, pipework would be fine, we'd have found a way to make package manifests usable on multiple systems by now, wine would have been a long-solved problem, etc. Even without all of the community fragmentation stuff.
What is most important is pulling users into Linux as a whole, and whatever system does that will benefit the entire ecosystem as a whole.
reply
Who?
The thing is, if Linux is going to become a viable desktop alternative, a package management standard will have to established, one way or another, and that may just come about as a result of one distro being most widely used, like in the case of Debian package. If you don't want Debian package to be the standard, then the rest of the Linux community had better pick another package that they think is better and adopt it as the standard. Otherwise, Debian package will probably become the standard by default.
reply
The thing is, if Linux is going to become a viable desktop alternative, a package management standard will have to established, one way or another, and that may just come about as a result of one distro being most widely used, like in the case of Debian package. If you don't want Debian package to be the standard, then the rest of the Linux community had better pick another package that they think is better and adopt it as the standard. Otherwise, Debian package will probably become the standard by default.
reply
imonabudget
In my experience the AUR is just a collection of half maintained, barely working bash scripts that pull binaries from 1000s of random software vendors servers. By using it you're basically trusting some random dude from the internet to execute a bunch of bash commands on your system. I would much rather either install the software manually or use flatpaks/snaps which have some form of isolation and an easy way to upgrade or uninstall. Some snaps are even maintained by the software vendors themselves.
reply
In my experience the AUR is just a collection of half maintained, barely working bash scripts that pull binaries from 1000s of random software vendors servers. By using it you're basically trusting some random dude from the internet to execute a bunch of bash commands on your system. I would much rather either install the software manually or use flatpaks/snaps which have some form of isolation and an easy way to upgrade or uninstall. Some snaps are even maintained by the software vendors themselves.
reply
John
You are no doubt well aware that one guy is responsible for developing both Pulseaudio and Systemd, one guy at one particular company, one guy who has openly called for breaking compatibility with other Unix-like systems to supposedly speed up progress, one guy who is complaining just like you that the problem is too many packaging formats. Maybe, just maybe, you are being part of the problem not telling things exactly as they are.
reply
You are no doubt well aware that one guy is responsible for developing both Pulseaudio and Systemd, one guy at one particular company, one guy who has openly called for breaking compatibility with other Unix-like systems to supposedly speed up progress, one guy who is complaining just like you that the problem is too many packaging formats. Maybe, just maybe, you are being part of the problem not telling things exactly as they are.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
8:36
9:38
10:43
