this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
833 points (95.7% liked)
linuxmemes
21183 readers
1288 users here now
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
- Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
- Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
- Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
- Bigotry will not be tolerated.
- These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
3. Post Linux-related content
- Including Unix and BSD.
- Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of
sudoin Windows. - No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
4. No recent reposts
- Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Canonical is doing the same thing Microsoft is doing with Edge - using its dominant position to push its other products and force out competition, and to lock users (and potentially developers) into its own ecosystem.
Saying that Edge is Chromium is like saying that Manjaro is Arch or diamond is just coal. They're related, but there's significant material difference.
When it was introduced in Windows 10, Edge had an immediate and massive surge in its adoption rate. That wasn't natural growth based on the application's merits -- it was simply a result of Edge being present in new installs.
Wait, but doesn't it result in more copies of the dependencies being installed locally because they're duplicated for each application?
It's actually less about the library being obscure, and more about version conflicts, which is actually more a problem with common libraries.
For example, let's say you want to install applications A, B, and C, and they each depend on library L. If A depends on Lv1, and B depends on Lv2, and C depends on Lv3, with traditional package management, you're in a predicament. You can only have one copy of L, and the versions of L may not be compatible.
Solutions like snap, flatpak, appimage, and even things like Docker and other containerization techniques, get around this issue by having applications ship the specific version of the library they need. You end up with more copies of the library, but every application has exactly the version it needs/the developer tested with.
The age and obscurity of the library is irrelevant - you could always include libraries bundled with the app, if they didn't exist in system repos. For example, in deb packages, you could include it in the data.tar portion of the package (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_(file_format)).
Libraries with version names baked in are one solution to the dependency hell problem, but that requires support from the language/framework/tooling to build the application, and/or the OS (or things get hacky and messy quickly).
If you read that dependency hell page, you'll see another solution is portable apps, which specifically mentions Appimage, Flatpak, and Snap.
Additionally, if you read the Debian docs on How to Cope with Conflicting Requirements, the first solution they give is to "Install such programs using corresponding sandboxed upstream binary packages," such as "Flatpak, Snap, or AppImage packages."
This is incorrect. The target audience for Flatpak is desktop users: https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/introduction.html#target-audience. Flatpaks are explicitly for consumer, graphical applications.
I'll give flatpak and snap one thing: they did make some concession to avoiding duplication, unlike docker which utterly duplicates everything.
With flatpak and snap, applications can depend on/pull in a maintained external layer. So you might want 'gnome environment, version 43' and other applications that want that can all share. That layer can be updated independently of dependencies. You might have two instances of the gnome layers (say 43 and 44) due to different applications declaring different versions, but it's not too bad.
Now there is some duplication, some libraries that an app says "oh, no particular layer for this one, fine I'll just bundle it". But at least there's a mechanism to not necessarily do that for everything.
I'll add that the 'pseudo-sandbox' is of some dubious value, as far as I can tell the app declares how much or little sandboxing it wants and the user doesn't really get the opportunity to consent or even know that a snap has full access versus limited access.
I'll also say that some functionality is broken in snaps (and flatpak). For example I used KeepPassXC browser integration, and then when snap was used instead of native, it broke. A number of extensions broke and the development attitude was everyone pointing fingers everywhere else and ultimately saying "just find a ppa with a browser ok?"
I'll second the "screw it, I give up on packaging, my app is now a monolithic flatpak, snap, appimage, or docker container" mindset of a lot of developers.