💀
>we can't build linux distributions that don't have dependency hells
>I know, let's make a bloat package distribution system that repackages over and over again the same dependencies for every program, so we don't have to manage it at all
Flatpak is a solution as much as putting duct tape on a leaky pipe is. If distros ever really try to push this down my throat, I'll just go back to Windows. If I'm forced to support bloat, at least I can also easily use proprietary bloat too when I need/want to.
@grey
Snaps might not be the reason I left Ubuntu, but they're certainly the reason I'm happier by the day that I did.
The thing is, I'm not really convinced that for the average user dependency hell is a problem. I've very rarely encountered serious issues of things conflicting to where I couldn't get something working. In fact, I don't remember it happening in my current 4 year run of Linux as main OS.
that and fucking python.
@grey
Maybe that's why I didn't encounter it much. Even in Ubuntu days, I'd always update to latest release within a few weeks of it coming out. I never discriminated against non-LTS versions. First time I gave Linux a good try was Ubuntu 10.10 after all.... man, that was a long time ago...
@alyx Yeah, fuck that. RAM is cheap, so gimme static compiled binaries ffs. How hard can it be?
Or AppImage, whatever.
In both cases it's a liability issue, because if an included library has a vulnerability, the static binary or the entire AppImage need to be updated and a new version of the application should be announced and released. From this point of view working with dynamically linked binaries, and thus packages is beneficial.
guix #1, internetlets need not apply