-2
An Open Letter on Linux Compatibility (and Why Flatpak Isn't the Fix) (www.reddit.com)
submitted 7 hours ago by to c/linux@lemmy.world
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Relevant to SteamOS and open-platform gaming, it proposes a different paradigm for Linux-based distributions and operating systems, one that could address compatibility issues on alternative platforms that Windows users often take for granted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 6 hours ago* (2 children)

That's OOP: https://xkcd.com/927/

If I understand OOP correctly, the NT compatibility promise is the idea that not only the kernel but also the userspace is standardized, backwards compatible and stable.

OOP really doesn't seem to understand how Linux works under the hood and what the issue is.

The main problem is not that e.g. installed libraries are in different paths under different distros, but that installing libraries is different between different distros, and that different versions are available.

A library package might be called libXYZ-dev in one distro and libXYZ-devel in another, and in the third distro it's not even available or available in the wrong versions. That's the real problem, and OOPs approach of splitting package distribution from the stability of the user space is completely contrary to their proposed solution.

They just assumed two contradicting goals would somehow make a coherent whole.

That author just saw Windows and didn't understand why that system works, saw Linux and didn't understand why there's fragmentation problems there and thought that applying the Windows model to Linux somehow magically works.

Edit: I just noticed that the OP and the author of the blog post have the same user name and thus likely are the same person.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    I think you’ve gotten a really bad read of my article. We know the typical Linux stack has problems with libraries failing to maintain backward compatibility and even when they do, the guarantees are nowhere near as strong or long-lasting as on Windows.

    The problem is ultimately cultural. My article is essentially an appeal to anyone willing and capable of building a sane userspace through a single distribution. If that distribution adopts the stack, others can copy it or diverge at their own cost.

    As for separating the userspace from regular applications, the point is that the OS shouldn’t treat system packages and user packages as the same thing. That’s separation of concerns, not a contradiction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 6 hours ago

    I think you’ve gotten a really bad read of my article. We know the typical Linux stack has problems with libraries failing to maintain backward compatibility

    We do? I certainly don't. Which libraries? That's likely not a generic Linux issue. That's more probably a specific issue with those specific libraries or distros.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent