jj4211

jj4211 , vor 5 Tagen

Related, I predict Windows on ARM will be a massive failure, again.

Windows is Windows because a critical mass of their market is terrified of being vaguely incompatible with any software they use today. Wine will never give them enough confidence just like ARM emulation of x86 will never give them confidence.

Extra bizarre, from what I've seen the Windows devices vendors are treating the ARM variants as a premium model and charging more for them, despite having no real compelling story for the customers. You can either have an x86 offering that's from all appearances just as overall capable and absolutely able to run your software today, on an ARM offering that is more expensive and maybe a bit less compatible, with maybe better battery life (either sincerely or at least a belief).

Mac is able to force the issue because the hardware and software all wanted to make ARM happen and forced it, but with Windows on ARM, only Qualcomm really cares, Microsoft and all the device vendors would prefer to hedge their bets, which in this case tie goes to the incumbent.

jj4211 , vor 13 Tagen

Flatpack can be centrally managed, it's just like a parallel distribution scheme, where apps have dependencies and are centrally updated. If a flatpack is made reasonably, then it gets library updates independent of the app developer doing it.

"App image" and " install from tarball" violate those principles, but not snap or flatpack.

jj4211 , vor 13 Tagen

You don't need the distro to package your sodtware through their package management systems though. Apt and dnf repositories are extensible, anyone can publish. If you go to copr or ppa you can have a little extra help too, without distro maintainers.

The headache comes up when multiple third party repositories start conflicting with each other when you add enough of them, despite they're best efforts. This scenario starts needing flatpack, which can, for example concurrently provide multiple distinct library versions installed that traditionally would conflict with each other. This doesn't mean application has to bundle the dependency, that dependency can still be external to the package and independently updated, it just means conflicts can be gracefully handled.

jj4211 , vor 13 Tagen

Depends on if you stick to distro provided dependencies, then you are generally good, unless a third party repo decided to supersede that dependency.

I have spent a long time carefully packaging as a third party repository and it's generally doable. Just sometimes another repository isn't as careful and blows away the distribution provided libraries.

jj4211 , vor 13 Tagen

Define "the OS package manager". If the distro comes with flatpack and dnf equally, and both are invoked by the generic "get updates" tooling, then both could count as "the" update manager. They both check all apps for updates.

Odd to advocate for docker containers, they always have the app provider also on the hook for all dependencies because they always are inherently bundled. If a library has a critical bug fix, then your docker like containers will be stuck without the fix until the app provider gets around to fixing it, and app providers are highly unreliable on docker hub. Besides, update discipline among docker/podman users is generally atrocious, and given the relatively tedious nature of following updates with that ecosystem, I am not surprised. Even best case, docker style uses more disk space and more memory than any other option, apart from VM.

With respect to never having to worry about bundled dependencies with rpm/deb, third party packages bundle or statically link all the time. If they don't, then they sometimes overwrite the OS provided dependency with an incompatible one that breaks OS packages, if the dependency is obscure enough for them not to notice other usage.

jj4211 , vor 21 Tagen

And at least in some distributions, they do exactly that, a number of aliases for the same interface. And you can add your own.

jj4211 , vor einem Monat

Well, tar.zstd is starting to be the thing now.

jj4211 , vor einem Monat

I was not familiar and I'm American. Guess they'll have to exile me somewhere...

jj4211 , vor einem Monat

I also speak English, and now I'm extra exiled and will have to go to some country that I don't speak the language.

jj4211 , vor einem Monat

While that is technically true, Microsoft didn't really make any effort to correct the misunderstanding, despite it being a widely reported story in tech.

I suspect they had a legitimate faction that was going to say "rolling release" and so they let it go.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

In this case, I'd say it's less about how the registry works, and more about how deliberately obnoxious Microsoft makes the experience for the sake of their agenda.

Sure if you have to deal with the registry at all, it's "hard" but that's casting stones from a glass house as dconf can be just as hard, and then you have the odd occasion where someone suggests dbus-send, which certainly doesn't have room to mock registry handling as hard. The point is that most people never have to touch dconf/dbus directly to do what they want, and in Microsoft some things are deliberately obscure due to user hostile intentions.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

Well, sure, but this has a user hostile motive behind it.

Microsoft could have offered a right-click/disable internet search to facilitate. However, they wanted people to just give up and soak in start-menu driven internet action, so they buried the option in an obscure registry key.

The key is the start menu search to internet really makes the experience suck, as you try to type something on local system and some internet result gets prioritized, and by nature of the internet search, the internet search is unpredictable, so the search you do every day that usually opens up what you expect suddenly starts going to some internet site in edge.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

For the "don't care" computer user? absolutely. Given that the key doesn't exist at all by default, means it's not discoverable even for someone that might think to randomly peruse the registry hierarchy. Even if you know it, it's a typically tedious registry path. Based on Microsoft's track record, the fact you know the registry key today doesn't mean that key won't change behaviors or move somewhere else randomly, or start having to be paired with some other registry key.

Contrast with Plasma, where the same capability is possible, and I just right clicked the button to check out settings and could easily figure out without help or internet search how to enable/disable internet results in the search. Further when I enabled it, the non-internet search stayed blazing fast. Then disabled it again because, well, why would I want that. I did however add browser tab search since I bothered to look because that is handy, just removed history and web search.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

I feel like Red hat has pulled off a remarkable marketing feat with Ansible.

I'm my work I consult with a lot of different sysadmins and have to be conversant in whatever they are using and that includes Ansible for a big chunk of the industry.

I'd say for about 90% of people I've worked with using ansible heavily after getting the hang of it, when they are being honest they don't see what it is getting them (generally it's a lot more tedious but not better than alternatives), but are afraid to admit it because "not getting Ansible" might be seen as being inadequate in the industry. And this is only counting the folks that I consider to have gotten far enough to be competent in Ansible, reflecting experiences of people who know how to use it, but still don't understand why they should see it as "helpful". Lots of people don't make it that far (and those folks are even more shy because they think themselves "dumb" for not getting it ).

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

Yeah, ansible is just full of these scenarios. Even in the best of times it demands an awful amount of verbosity.

Half the time I see people land with no more idempotency than they had before, which is supposed to be one of the big draws. A lot of the things they are frontending are inherently idempotent, and a lot of other times the modules themselves fail to be safe to run multiple times for the admins input. I've been shocked how fragile some modules have been given its regard in the industry.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

When I installed F39, it at least promoted and made opting into the most reasonable nonfree repositories. So at least recently they've gotten a bit more practical on that situation.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

I can't imagine anyone wanting to run KDE on a server or corporate workstation.

While I generally agree that there's probably not much appetite among the distributions for switching default, this point seems weird. I don't see why KDE would be any less desired than Gnome in that segment.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten (Bearbeitet vor 2 Monaten)

I agree, have seen so many people trying to document how to "desnap" Ubuntu and wondered why bother, you are fighting against what is now the whole point of Ubuntu while trying to use Ubuntu while so many other options exist.

I do happily encourage folks to explain why they left Ubuntu behind as I did (snaps). No confusion, just a reiteration of disappointment that they went from being my favorite distro to completely off my list with the snap stuff.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

I would like the feedback to know why people do not like my project and if I feel like I should care about that perspective.

Further, gnome is hard to ignore, and getting harder all the time. Beyond being the default, even when I go to the trouble of switching the desktop, certain applications in GTK will bring the Gnome design language wherever it goes, and it's deviated enough to not be possible to theme into consistency. It's design decisions permeate the distributions and create some headaches even when you make a fair effort to opt out of it.

jj4211 , vor 2 Monaten

So to get it straight... You call people stating their preference on an open source project as being an entitled brat, while simultaneously saying you'll never make any open source contributions while using open source because you wouldn't like anyone disagreeing with you? That seems pretty entitled...