Now that questionable quality is everywhere, package management and curation of software becomes more important, IMO.
Linux distros like Debian, Alpine, Gentoo, Fedora, Arch Linux etc. all have volunteers that all try to maintain solid packages and bring in quality software. Package maintainers that bring new software into a distro are trying their very best to select software that is open source, has potential, is maintained, is useful, secure and not bloated.
New official packages are worth watching out for, for instance in the RSS feed for Arch Linux (https://archlinux.org/feeds/packages/, found on the right hand side of https://archlinux.org/). Sometimes popular packages like Blender or Godot also have interesting updates.
Some TUI and command line utilities are more fun and useful than maybe first expected.
Also, new Linux kernel releases usually contains improvements for performance or security, that at least some people find exciting.
At the end of the day, excitement is probably an internal thing, though.
Now that questionable quality is everywhere, package management and curation of software becomes more important, IMO.
Curation, unquestionably yes. Package management though? Take for instance the issue of static vs dynamic linking, with respect to security:
Dynamic linking is better, because package maintainer can quickly apply a patch to a vulnerable library and instantly protect all programs that depends on it. Can’t trust developers with this one, some of them are bound to lag on updates, and we want to protect our users.
Static linking is better, because developers can quickly apply a patch to a vulnerable library and instantly update their program without breaking anything. Can’t trust distros with this one, some of them are bound to lag on updates, and we want to protect our users.
What I’d really like in the Linux space, is a stable foundation. Something sufficient to build programs on top, including graphical & interaction intensive ones, that does not break users. Similar to the Linux kernel, or the old Windows APIs (before they started to break stuff). Something minimal, I’m not asking for a GUI toolkit, or even a font renderer. Just enough of an API so I can build my own, and have it work forever (that may involve protocols for screen readers & the like).
Now I wouldn’t mind a distro that encourages developers to use a specific set of dynamically linked dependencies. As long as they’re crystal clear which have a stable ABI, and the non-stable ones aren’t strictly necessary to build & deploy my program.
As a user though I love the official store front. Do keep pkg-mgr install awesome_software, automatic updates… I can’t just trust some random dev on the internet after all.
Flatpak. You’re looking for Flatpak. It’s the stable foundation, and app developers use it directly, so everyone gets consistently the same app, updated at the same time without waiting for different “curators” to do the same busywork and add random delay.
What does Flatpak get me, though? Do I have graphics? Sound? Vulkan/OpenGl? DBus? An accessibility API maybe? I don’t think there’s a way to do statically link most (any?) of those in my executable, so if they’re not as stable as the kernel we’re kinda back to square one.
Edit: okay, the concept of runtime there looks like what I want. I shall look into this.
Now that questionable quality is everywhere, package management and curation of software becomes more important, IMO.
Linux distros like Debian, Alpine, Gentoo, Fedora, Arch Linux etc. all have volunteers that all try to maintain solid packages and bring in quality software. Package maintainers that bring new software into a distro are trying their very best to select software that is open source, has potential, is maintained, is useful, secure and not bloated.
New official packages are worth watching out for, for instance in the RSS feed for Arch Linux (https://archlinux.org/feeds/packages/, found on the right hand side of https://archlinux.org/). Sometimes popular packages like Blender or Godot also have interesting updates.
Some TUI and command line utilities are more fun and useful than maybe first expected.
Also, new Linux kernel releases usually contains improvements for performance or security, that at least some people find exciting.
At the end of the day, excitement is probably an internal thing, though.
score 1 · canonical
Curation, unquestionably yes. Package management though? Take for instance the issue of static vs dynamic linking, with respect to security:
What I’d really like in the Linux space, is a stable foundation. Something sufficient to build programs on top, including graphical & interaction intensive ones, that does not break users. Similar to the Linux kernel, or the old Windows APIs (before they started to break stuff). Something minimal, I’m not asking for a GUI toolkit, or even a font renderer. Just enough of an API so I can build my own, and have it work forever (that may involve protocols for screen readers & the like).
Now I wouldn’t mind a distro that encourages developers to use a specific set of dynamically linked dependencies. As long as they’re crystal clear which have a stable ABI, and the non-stable ones aren’t strictly necessary to build & deploy my program.
As a user though I love the official store front. Do keep
pkg-mgr install awesome_software, automatic updates… I can’t just trust some random dev on the internet after all.score 1 · canonical
Flatpak. You’re looking for Flatpak. It’s the stable foundation, and app developers use it directly, so everyone gets consistently the same app, updated at the same time without waiting for different “curators” to do the same busywork and add random delay.
score 1 · canonical
What does Flatpak get me, though? Do I have graphics? Sound? Vulkan/OpenGl? DBus? An accessibility API maybe? I don’t think there’s a way to do statically link most (any?) of those in my executable, so if they’re not as stable as the kernel we’re kinda back to square one.
Edit: okay, the concept of runtime there looks like what I want. I shall look into this.
score 2 · canonical