undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgens4y ago0 comments

I never said it doesn't work. And yes, i do have "anything substantive" against it. The fact that, as i mentioned, it is just a package manager. And a bad one.

> From what I have seen, most of the opposition to Flatpak comes from the same place that the one to systemd: fear of change.

This is what pisses me off. You, nor anyone else, can tell everyone else what >I< think or feel. It's not fear, nor fear of change, nor any other dumb ass reason people who think like you think it is. I hate it because it's just a package manager. I hate it because, when all the reasons against it are brought up, something nebulous like "security" or something quazi-psychological like "fear of change" are brought up in defense of it.

The real problem with flatpacks is that they don't solve the real problem, and they do it poorly.

Want to solve the problem of your program not running on multiple distros, or not running in 5 years ? Then look at why that is. For example; it's not that the zip file format will change, so why must i recompile my program every time libzip changes ? Or X11 to wayland transition; why does my program have to even care about that when all i want is a window and an opengl context ? (bdw the solution to the latter is SDL2)

Let's look back when flatpack started. Why did it start ? Maybe because GTK3 changed it's API ever so often ?

Linux doesn't have a good GUI toolkit. THAT is the biggest problem here.

I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people. That dismisses all further discussion. That is the real "hate" that people like you blame others of.

0 comments

WastingMyTime894y ago

> The fact that, as i mentioned, it is just a package manager. And a bad one.

If you don’t mind me asking again, why is it bad? Because the rest of your post certainly doesn’t answer that question.

I understood that you don’t personally like that libraries change. Unfortunately, they most definitely do and no, preventing everyone on earth from ever releasing an incompatible library is not a realistic solution.

> I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people.

Well, you definitely are complaining about change a lot in a very impassioned way.

joconde4y ago

>> I just fucking hate the "ohh, you just don't like change" people.

> Well, you definitely are complaining about change a lot in a very impassioned way.

They are complaining about people who assumed an irrational reason for their opposition to something, while they have a rational one. I find that kind of assumption condescending ("let me, the rational one, explain to you how to get rid of your insecurities so you can appreciate how right I am") and kind of infuriating too.

> I understood that you don’t personally like that libraries change.

If you add breaking changes without maintaining the backward-compatible version for a reasonable amount of time, I'd argue your library isn't fit to be a dependency for anything important. I definitely wouldn't use it.

The Python package ecosystem may be a mess, but I still manage to use dozens of shared packages daily with quite rare breaking changes, even in libraries that see a lot of developments. I would prefer that we focus on improving API stability for shared libraries, instead of giving up and duplicating dependencies everywhere.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse