Comment by kwanbix
1 day ago
I agree 100% with Linus. I can run a WinXP exe on Win10 or 11 almost every time, but on Linux I often have to chase down versions that still work with the latest Mint or Ubuntu distros. Stuff that worked before just breaks, especially if the app isn’t in the repo.
Yes and even the package format thing is a hell of its own. Even on Ubuntu you have multiple package formats and sometimes there are even multiple app stores (a Gnome one and an Ubuntu specific if I remember correctly)
Ultimately this boils down to lack of clear technical and community leadership from Canonical. Too unwilling to say "no" to vanity/pet projects that end up costing all of us as they make the resulting distribution into a moving target too difficult to support in the enterprise - at least, not with the skillset of the average desktop support hire these days.
I want to go to the alternate timeline where they just stuck with a set of technologies... ideally KDE... and just matured them up until they were the idealized version of their original plan instead of always throwing things away to rewrite them for ideological or technical purity of design.
You can also run a WinXP exe on any Linux distribution almost every time. That's the point of project and Linus' quip: The only stable ABI around on MS Windows and Linux is Win32 (BTW, I do not agree with this.)
I think it's not unlikely that we reach reach a point in a couple of decades where we are all developing win32 apps that most people are running some form of linux.
We already have an entire platform like that (steam deck), and it's the best linux development experience around in my opinion.
That’s actually an intentional nudge to make the software packaged by the distro, which usually implies that they are open source.
Who needs ABI compatibility when your software is OSS? You only need API compatibility at that point.
So every Linux distribution should compile and distribute packages for every single piece of open source software in existence, both the very newest stuff that was only released last week, and also everything from 30+ years ago, no matter how obscure.
Because almost certainly someone out there will want to use it. And they should be able to, because that is the entire point of free software: user freedom.
Those users will either check the source code and compile it themself, with all the proper options to match their system; or rely on a software distribution to do it for them.
People who are complaining would prefer a world of isolated apps downloaded from signed stores, but Linux was born at an optimistic time when the goal was software that cooperate and form a system, and which distribution does not depend on a central trusted platform.
I do not believe that there is any real technical issue discussed here, just drastically different goals.
1 reply →
I am not an expert on this, but my question is, how does windows manages to achieve it? Why can't Linux do the same?
4 replies →
Your tone makes it sound like this is a bad thing. But from a user’s perspective, I do want a distro to package as much software as possible. And it has nothing to do with user freedom. It’s all about being entitled as a user to have the world’s software conveniently packaged.
9 replies →
Not sure if it's the right solution but it's a description of what happens right now in practice yes.
6 replies →
That's Guix.
Even open-source software has to deal with the moving target that is ABI and API compatibility on Linux. OpenSSL’s API versioning is a nightmare, for example, and it’s the most critical piece of software to dynamically link (and almost everything needs a crypto/SSL library).
Stable ABIs for certain critical pieces of independently-updatable software (libc, OpenSSL, etc.) is not even that big of a lift or a hard tradeoff. I’ve never run into any issues with macOS’s libc because it doesn’t version the symbol for fopen like glibc does. It just requires commitment and forethought.
The reason you're getting downvoted is that what you're saying implies a shit-ton of work for the distros -- that's expensive work that someone has to pay for (but nobody wants to, and think of the cost of opportunity).
But you're not entirely wrong -- as long as you have API compatibility then it's just a rebuild, right? Well, no, because something always breaks and requires attention. The fact is that in the world of open source the devs/maintainers can't be as disciplined about API compat as you want them to be, and sometimes they have to break backwards compatibility for reasons (security, or just too much tech debt and maint load for obsolete APIs). Because every upstream evolves at a different rate, keeping a distro updated is just hard.
I'm not saying that statically linking things and continuing to run the binaries for decades is a good answer though. I'm merely explaining why I think your comment got downvoted.
Everyone is mentioning ABI, but this is really an API problem, so "you only need API compatibility at that point" is a very big understatement.