Fortunately we do have a steady influx of new people incl. those who demand shit to god damn work, finally shifting this notion.
For the time being we still have to resort to using the Windows version and Wine for old software though… But I already had the situation where the (unmaintained but working) app also had a Flatpak which was last updated many years ago and it just worked, which made me incredibly happy and hopeful. ❤️
Good thing there’s a battle-proven response if people don’t like this because it’s “not what Linux is supposed to be” or some other nonsense: If you don’t like it just fork it yourself. 😚
Fortunately we do have a steady influx of new people incl. those who demand shit to god damn work, finally shifting this notion.
What the hell is going on in this thread? Linux has been being actively developed by people who want “shit to god damn work” forever. What are the concrete examples of things that don’t work? Old games? Is that the problem here? These things that were developed for the locked in Windows ecosystem since time immemorial and never ran on Linux and now, through all of the work of the Linux ecosystem, do, by some miracle, run on Linux. It’s amazing that these things work at all: they were never intended to!
What the hell is going on in this thread? Linux has been being actively developed by people who want “shit to god damn work” forever.
Yes and no. Yes as in “you can fix it” (if you’re a programmer), but no in terms of “everything is set up so binaries will still run in 20 years as-is”. Dependency hell, missing library versions, binaries being linked against old glibc versions you can’t provide… all of these are known issues, and devs are often being discouraged from compiling tools in a way that makes them work forever (since that makes the app bigger and potentially consume more memory). And better don’t tell someone who’s blind (and used Linux before) what’s quoted above, they’ll either laugh at you or get really angry. It’s also one of the reasons I’m angry (I’m able to see, but I hate this hypocrisy in the community). Linux on desktop utterly alienated disabled people, simply because stuff like screenreaders keep breaking.
Running 20 year old binaries is not the primary use case and it is very manageable if you actually want to do that. I’ve been amazed at some completely ancient programs that I’ve been able to run, but I don’t see any reason a 20 year old binary should “just work”, that kind of support is a bit silly. Instead maybe we should encourage abandonware to not be abandonware? If you’re not going to support your project, and that project is important to people, provide the source. I don’t blame the Linux developers for that kind of thing at all.
devs are often being discouraged from compiling tools in a way that makes them work forever (since that makes the app bigger and potentially consume more memory)
This is simply not true. If you want your program to be a core part of a distribution, yes, you must follow that distribution’s packaging and linking guidelines: I’m not sure what else a dev would expect. There is no requirement that your program be part of a distribution’s core. Dynamic linking isn’t some huge burden holding everyone back and I have absolutely no idea why anyone would pretend it is. If you want to static link go for it? There is literally nothing stopping you.
Linux desktop isn’t actively working against disabled people, don’t be obtuse. There is so much work being done for literally no money by volunteers and they are unable to prioritize accessibility. That’s unfortunate but it’s not some sort of hypocritical alienation. That also has likely very little to do with the Linux kernel ABI stability like you claimed earlier.
But this idea that “finally we have people that want Linux to work” is infuriating. Do you have any idea how much of an uphill battle it has been to just get WiFi working on Linux? That isn’t because the volunteer community is lazy and doesn’t want things to work: that’s because literally every company is hostile to the open source community to the point of sometimes deliberately changing things just to screw us over. The entitlement in that statement is truly infuriating.
Running 20 year old binaries is not the primary use case and it is very manageable if you actually want to do that. I’ve been amazed at some completely ancient programs that I’ve been able to run, but I don’t see any reason a 20 year old binary should “just work”, that kind of support is a bit silly. Instead maybe we should encourage abandonware to not be abandonware? If you’re not going to support your project, and that project is important to people, provide the source. I don’t blame the Linux developers for that kind of thing at all.
I see your point. What I think though is that it’s particularly hard on Linux to fix programs, especially if you are not a developer (which is always the perspective I try to see things from). Most notable architectural difference here between f.e. Windows and Linux would be how you’re able to simply throw a library into the same folder as the executable on Windows for it to use it (an action every common user can do and fully understand). On Linux you hypothetically can work with LD_PRELOAD, but (assuming someone already wrote a tutorial and points to the file for you to grab) even that already requires more knowledge about some system concepts.
Of course software not becoming abandonware would be best, but that’s not really something we can expect to happen. Even if Europe would make the absolutely banger move and enforce open-sourcing upon abandonment of software after a few years, it would still require a developer to fix issues. The architecture of the OS should be set up so it’s as easy as possible to make something run, using concepts (like file management) as many people as possible are familiar with.
devs are often being discouraged from compiling tools in a way that makes them work forever (since that makes the app bigger and potentially consume more memory)
This is simply not true.
We might be in different bubbles in this case. Please be aware I’m talking about the very loud toxic minority (hopefully it’s a minority…) who constantly shit about how things aren’t following “KISS” close enough, that your app or distro is bloated, etc. It feels like if I was collecting all statements against Flatpak, systemd, even just static linking that boil down to “it’s bloated! It’s not KISS! Bad!” (so not well-reasoned criticism) I read or hear, including around my local hackspace or on events, I could fill whole books.
Linux desktop isn’t actively working against disabled people, don’t be obtuse.
Not actively, no. The issue here is rather that, for way too long, we didn’t care enough. We had things working comparatively nicely one or two decades ago, but in more recent history the support deteriorated to such a degree the Linux desktop has become, to a huge degree, inaccessible to blind people (mostly due to issues with Wayland). I didn’t save those blogposts or statements to show in discussions like these, but the takeaway from all of them is that “It used to work for me many years ago, but if I want a system that respects me today I’m forced to use Mac”. But of course you’re also right, it’s slowly getting better!
(Correct me if I’m wrong, not a native speaker: “being alienated” doesn’t inherently imply malicious intent of doing so, does it?)
But this idea that “finally we have people that want Linux to work” is infuriating. Do you have any idea how much of an uphill battle it has been to just get WiFi working on Linux? That isn’t because the volunteer community is lazy and doesn’t want things to work: that’s because literally every company is hostile to the open source community to the point of sometimes deliberately changing things just to screw us over. The entitlement in that statement is truly infuriating.
Sorry, I was really pissed off yesterday evening by earlier comments in the chain implying it’s good to “filter out people” and got carried away. This one is completely on me.
What I think though is that it’s particularly hard on Linux to fix programs, especially if you are not a developer (which is always the perspective I try to see things from). Most notable architectural difference here between f.e. Windows and Linux would be how you’re able to simply throw a library into the same folder as the executable on Windows for it to use it (an action every common user can do and fully understand). On Linux you hypothetically can work with LD_PRELOAD, but (assuming someone already wrote a tutorial and points to the file for you to grab) even that already requires more knowledge about some system concepts.
You’re not even realizing how advanced of a user on Windows you have to be to realize that putting a DLL in the correct directory will make that the library used by the program running from that directory. Most users won’t even know what a DLL is. Also I work in security professionally and I’ve used this fun little fact to get remote code execution multiple times, so I don’t see how it’s a good thing, especially when you consider that Linux’s primary use case is servers. You can do the exact same thing on Linux, as you said, it’s just opt in behavior. If you are knowledgeable enough to know what a DLL is and what effects placing one in a given folder have, you’re knowledgeable enough to know what a shared library is and how to open a text editor and type LD_LOAD_PATH or LD_PRELOAD. I don’t buy this argument at all.
Linux Desktop is predominantly a volunteer project. It is not backed by millions of dollars and devs from major corporations like the kernel or base system. It is backed by people who are doing way too much work for free. They likely care about accessibility and people using their project, but they also care about the myriad of other issues that they face for the other 90+% of their user base. Is that hugely unfortunate? Yes, it sucks. I wish there was money invested in Linux as a desktop platform, but compared to macOS and Windows it’s fair to say there is a rounding error towards $0.
Fortunately we do have a steady influx of new people incl. those who demand shit to god damn work, finally shifting this notion.
For the time being we still have to resort to using the Windows version and Wine for old software though… But I already had the situation where the (unmaintained but working) app also had a Flatpak which was last updated many years ago and it just worked, which made me incredibly happy and hopeful. ❤️
Good thing there’s a battle-proven response if people don’t like this because it’s “not what Linux is supposed to be” or some other nonsense: If you don’t like it just fork it yourself. 😚
What the hell is going on in this thread? Linux has been being actively developed by people who want “shit to god damn work” forever. What are the concrete examples of things that don’t work? Old games? Is that the problem here? These things that were developed for the locked in Windows ecosystem since time immemorial and never ran on Linux and now, through all of the work of the Linux ecosystem, do, by some miracle, run on Linux. It’s amazing that these things work at all: they were never intended to!
Yes and no. Yes as in “you can fix it” (if you’re a programmer), but no in terms of “everything is set up so binaries will still run in 20 years as-is”. Dependency hell, missing library versions, binaries being linked against old glibc versions you can’t provide… all of these are known issues, and devs are often being discouraged from compiling tools in a way that makes them work forever (since that makes the app bigger and potentially consume more memory). And better don’t tell someone who’s blind (and used Linux before) what’s quoted above, they’ll either laugh at you or get really angry. It’s also one of the reasons I’m angry (I’m able to see, but I hate this hypocrisy in the community). Linux on desktop utterly alienated disabled people, simply because stuff like screenreaders keep breaking.
Running 20 year old binaries is not the primary use case and it is very manageable if you actually want to do that. I’ve been amazed at some completely ancient programs that I’ve been able to run, but I don’t see any reason a 20 year old binary should “just work”, that kind of support is a bit silly. Instead maybe we should encourage abandonware to not be abandonware? If you’re not going to support your project, and that project is important to people, provide the source. I don’t blame the Linux developers for that kind of thing at all.
This is simply not true. If you want your program to be a core part of a distribution, yes, you must follow that distribution’s packaging and linking guidelines: I’m not sure what else a dev would expect. There is no requirement that your program be part of a distribution’s core. Dynamic linking isn’t some huge burden holding everyone back and I have absolutely no idea why anyone would pretend it is. If you want to static link go for it? There is literally nothing stopping you.
Linux desktop isn’t actively working against disabled people, don’t be obtuse. There is so much work being done for literally no money by volunteers and they are unable to prioritize accessibility. That’s unfortunate but it’s not some sort of hypocritical alienation. That also has likely very little to do with the Linux kernel ABI stability like you claimed earlier.
But this idea that “finally we have people that want Linux to work” is infuriating. Do you have any idea how much of an uphill battle it has been to just get WiFi working on Linux? That isn’t because the volunteer community is lazy and doesn’t want things to work: that’s because literally every company is hostile to the open source community to the point of sometimes deliberately changing things just to screw us over. The entitlement in that statement is truly infuriating.
I see your point. What I think though is that it’s particularly hard on Linux to fix programs, especially if you are not a developer (which is always the perspective I try to see things from). Most notable architectural difference here between f.e. Windows and Linux would be how you’re able to simply throw a library into the same folder as the executable on Windows for it to use it (an action every common user can do and fully understand). On Linux you hypothetically can work with LD_PRELOAD, but (assuming someone already wrote a tutorial and points to the file for you to grab) even that already requires more knowledge about some system concepts.
Of course software not becoming abandonware would be best, but that’s not really something we can expect to happen. Even if Europe would make the absolutely banger move and enforce open-sourcing upon abandonment of software after a few years, it would still require a developer to fix issues. The architecture of the OS should be set up so it’s as easy as possible to make something run, using concepts (like file management) as many people as possible are familiar with.
We might be in different bubbles in this case. Please be aware I’m talking about the very loud toxic minority (hopefully it’s a minority…) who constantly shit about how things aren’t following “KISS” close enough, that your app or distro is bloated, etc. It feels like if I was collecting all statements against Flatpak, systemd, even just static linking that boil down to “it’s bloated! It’s not KISS! Bad!” (so not well-reasoned criticism) I read or hear, including around my local hackspace or on events, I could fill whole books.
Not actively, no. The issue here is rather that, for way too long, we didn’t care enough. We had things working comparatively nicely one or two decades ago, but in more recent history the support deteriorated to such a degree the Linux desktop has become, to a huge degree, inaccessible to blind people (mostly due to issues with Wayland). I didn’t save those blogposts or statements to show in discussions like these, but the takeaway from all of them is that “It used to work for me many years ago, but if I want a system that respects me today I’m forced to use Mac”. But of course you’re also right, it’s slowly getting better! (Correct me if I’m wrong, not a native speaker: “being alienated” doesn’t inherently imply malicious intent of doing so, does it?)
Sorry, I was really pissed off yesterday evening by earlier comments in the chain implying it’s good to “filter out people” and got carried away. This one is completely on me.
You’re not even realizing how advanced of a user on Windows you have to be to realize that putting a DLL in the correct directory will make that the library used by the program running from that directory. Most users won’t even know what a DLL is. Also I work in security professionally and I’ve used this fun little fact to get remote code execution multiple times, so I don’t see how it’s a good thing, especially when you consider that Linux’s primary use case is servers. You can do the exact same thing on Linux, as you said, it’s just opt in behavior. If you are knowledgeable enough to know what a DLL is and what effects placing one in a given folder have, you’re knowledgeable enough to know what a shared library is and how to open a text editor and type
LD_LOAD_PATHorLD_PRELOAD. I don’t buy this argument at all.Linux Desktop is predominantly a volunteer project. It is not backed by millions of dollars and devs from major corporations like the kernel or base system. It is backed by people who are doing way too much work for free. They likely care about accessibility and people using their project, but they also care about the myriad of other issues that they face for the other 90+% of their user base. Is that hugely unfortunate? Yes, it sucks. I wish there was money invested in Linux as a desktop platform, but compared to macOS and Windows it’s fair to say there is a rounding error towards $0.
deleted by creator