• baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think you might be talking about two group of Linux user. I think majority of the user realized that shared dependency is not scalable in the recent couple years, yet there are still a loud minority that oppose dupilicated dependencies that exists in these universal formats.

    Finally, I think the three universal package formats provide better sandboxing support than msi. But appx in windows are very much inline with these packaging formats.

    • uis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      shared dependency is not scalable

      Explain yourself.

      a loud minority

      Kernel develipers, libraries developers, compiler developers, distro maintainers, mirrors hosters, anyone whose system runs not on few terabytes disk and gigabit internet.

      I heard some geniuses put entire graphical drivers into snap/flatpak/appimages.

      • baseless_discourse@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Correct me if I am wrong.

        Different app depends on different version of the underlying softwares. In the old days distro packages apps, however it would cause dependency hell.

        Hence with the development in containers, universal packaging format prevails, where each app is packaged with all of its dependencies. so that the system dont need to maintain the dependency of every single app people want to use.

        • uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Different app depends on different version of the underlying softwares.

          On different ranges of versions. Usually something like “1.2 or newer”. With few exceptions that break ABI every year(looking at you, Boost) or 11 times a month(it is rust, who would have guessed). If everything was as hard as you described, then there is no way for me to play UT2004 back from, you guessed it, 2004. But I did, and all I needed just to install few 32-bit version of libraries and run it with OSS(very old audio api) emulation.

          however it would cause dependency hell.

          No, task of package manager is to solve dependency hell

          universal packaging format

          We had 2 universal packaging formats, now we have 5 universal packaging formats and two container types.

          where each app is packaged with all of its dependencies.

          Which in case of UT2004 means packaged with all exploits back from 2004.