Tracker1 wrote to Dennisk <=-

On 10/20/2020 6:13 PM, Dennisk wrote:

While I understand, that said the full package systems like flatpak
allow for dependencies to not be an issue and for complex application
sthat can be a big problem, especially with a distro upgrade, which
always blows up something in my experience.

These can be solved with better discipline and standards though. As much as

I

like Linux, Windows has an advantage here. Having that central control

means

that there is a better chance that you develop for one specific platform and have it work.

Okay, so you don't use the centrally managed/controlled package manager for your distro? And how does that jive with your specific platform
and have it work? Also, it means you're less likely to get
applications support on less popular distros.

I mean, if you don't care if actual people can get the applications
they actually need, that's fine, but it's not going to work for most people.

Yes, I use Yum and RPM. What is your point? They are vastly different Flatpak.

And it does work.

Flatpak means that Linux has failed as a platform. If you can't develop a program for that platform, without having to include a significant copy of

tha

t

platform because that platform will break your program, there is a serious deficiency somewhere.

You act like Linux is a single platform... there are variances between versions and distros that cause and bring a *LOT* of variance. Have
you ever had to support Linux for software before? Did you limit
yourself to the main two distros only?

I get what its trying to solve, but its like someone using their forehead to bang nails into wood, and then "solves" the problem of a sore head by

screwing

a metal plate to their forehead.

Then create a better solution that works across differing linux distros
in a common way... Until then, it works well.

There are already solutions. The problem is people cannot make them
work. There is utterly no point creating Yet Another Great Packaging
System when there isn't the discipline to make the existing ones work.
The whole philosophy of "lets create a solution, get coding" is
wrongheaded. The problem isn't that someone hasn't written the right
code, the problem is one of organisation and standards.

And I am aware that Linux is just the kernel, and that GNU is the core
tools around most distros, and each distro is kind of like its own OS.
But to mature as a platform you need to take users seriously, and user expectations.

The general opinion is that "Linux" is itself a platform. It's stated
as such so often, so people who are creating distros or variants need
to cogniscant of this.

Windows has the advantage here because there is one canonical Windows,
whereas anyone can make their own "Linux" which may or may not behave
with existing work.

If you are a developer, you have to figure out how to package it, and
take into account the different nuances between distros. For a platform
which only has a few percent desktop market share, it seems a cruel joke
to have to go through this.

Again, Flatpak is not RPM or DEB. It is a parallel installation,
installing dependencies in addition to your system, which leads to
bloat. Snap was convoluted. AppImage seemed OK though.


... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.29
� Synchronet � End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com