1070
Superiority brings controversy (aprogrammerlife.com)

Re-creation of someone else's post because the original was removed and I found it funny when I first saw it

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] HeyMrDeadMan@lemmy.world 116 points 10 months ago

I'm really triggered by the idea that Linux makes running old software easy. The bane of my existence is finding an application that depends on libButts.5.1, but my distro ships with libButts.5.3, which isn't backward compatible for some reason, and trying to install libButts.5.1 bricks the desktop environment for some reason.

[-] eumesmo@lemmings.world 32 points 10 months ago

I just searched for that lib, in an attempt to help you with the supposed problem. I won't deny, you got me there.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 10 points 10 months ago

And this is what is actually good about Linux. :)

[-] jasonwaterfalls@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Why is that good?

[-] HKayn@dormi.zone 19 points 10 months ago

No time for actual facts, only circlejerking /s

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Well this is linuxmemes

[-] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 18 points 10 months ago

Appimage, Snap, Flatpak, Docker, Podman, Distrobox, Toolbox...

[-] HeyMrDeadMan@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

All potentially fantastic ideas had the original author bothered to package in any of those formats. Much more common is the only release is a .deb built for an ancient version of Ubuntu, leading to my above frustrstions.

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
  1. Stop bothering with dead software.
  2. You can repackage old FOSS source code into any of those containers and install and use it that way. Nothing is stopping you, the tools are free and widely documented. You don't need to own the FOSS repository to repackage it, and actually a huge chunk of containers are packaged by people not affiliated with the development project of the software.
[-] LemoineFairclough@sh.itjust.works 1 points 10 months ago

I think we will become better served over time by using systems like the AUR or nix as it seems quite straightforward to make new software available with them. Both of those systems define the method a package should be built with, so even if the maintainer is long gone and the package hasn't been updated in a long time it will probably still be possible to build, or any changes needed to build it can be easily shared to save other people troubleshooting effort.

The drawbacks are: nix doesn't seem to have an elegant way to define that users or groups should be created (e.g. at least one package providing locate requires that) (though it does have at least one non-elegant way and one manual but less non-elegant way), and a package usable with pacman has lacked a definition of what version of every dependency it requires in at least one case where it would have been useful to me (even though that is possible apparently), so if anything made a backwards-incompatible change you may not be able to use the package manager alone to troubleshoot.

[-] LemoineFairclough@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

AppImage has definitely made my life a lot easier in several cases!

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

I've had poor luck with AppImage. Because of how it works, it has failed in the exact thing it was supposed to do, just werk everywhere. But I've heard it generally works well.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Those are fairly recent solutions

[-] dustyData@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

We only use software that has existed before the past decade in this household!

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

I wonder if someone is packaging that stuff for the new solutions

[-] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I mean not really, Appimage has been around since 2004, flatpak/docker for about a decade now. But at any rate I don't see your point, the person I replied to said it's hard to run old applications on Linux and I gave him solutions on how to do that. What does their age have to do with anything?

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

I don’t see your point, the person I replied to said it’s hard to run old applications on Linux and I gave him solutions on how to do that. What does their age have to do with anything?

it’s hard to run old applications on Linux

What does their age have to do with anything

I'm not sure if you're taking the piss but since those solutions are so recent, you won't find old applications packaged with those solutions.

[-] Nefyedardu@kbin.social 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

They don't need to be packaged at the time of creation anyway, they can be packaged right now. Distrobox makes this easy, like let's say you need an application that only works on Ubuntu 18.04. It's two commands:

distrobox create --image ubuntu:18.04 ubuntu

distrobox enter ubuntu -- sudo apt-get install _package_

Then to export the package to your desktop you can even do

distrobox enter ubuntu -- distrobox export --app _application_

Boom, you have an Ubuntu 18.04 application on an OS of your choosing. You can theoretically do this with any distro, distrobox can use any OCI images from docker-hub, quay.io, or any registry of your choice.

[-] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

I wouldn't exactly call that easy, but compared to how it used to be, fair enough.

[-] Fades@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

Most of the people who post these kinds of memes unironically, aren’t actual nix users

[-] torpak@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 10 months ago

can you not recompile the app to use the new lib?

[-] HeyMrDeadMan@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Someone probably could. But not me. I am not a software developer, and being one should not be a prerequisite to using an OS, despite what the memes in this very group might lead one to believe.

[-] anonono@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

that's when you find out that the updated build environment is incompatible with the older libraries the project expected.

usually the only escape is docker, or containerization to be correct, just give the old app and old environment.

this wastes a lot of space though

[-] icedterminal@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Potentially but it's not always that simple. I've literally encountered this exact scenario. OldeShit needs libY 1.9 but pacman is on 2.2. Can't downgrade because libY uses 10 different libs collectively in the depends tree that explicitly need 2.0 or higher. So you take a look at libY and OldeShit builds only to realise several functions that libY provide have been reworked or removed, making it incompatible with OldeShit. As such OldeShit doesn't build.

As an aside, this is quite literally why Microsoft has several different VC Redistributables. To avoid this issue. But this also creates another issue. Lol.

[-] veng@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Anyone who's feeling Linux savvy, try getting EAX working with some X-Fi hardware. Best of luck ;)

[-] HeyMrDeadMan@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago
[-] veng@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

I mean to be fair, it's likely you'd spend most of your time reverse engineering creative's drivers with something like ghidra, which doesn't need Linux 😄

[-] nintendiator@feddit.cl 2 points 10 months ago
  1. schroot
  2. ????
  3. PROFIT
[-] MooseBoys@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago
this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
1070 points (92.2% liked)

linuxmemes

20351 readers
951 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS