undefined | Better HN

0 pointsderefr10y ago0 comments

The parent is advocating for the Slackware approach—just take whatever's in the upstreams and slam it together—but installed into a container (so all that slamming doesn't conflict with anything), and distributed as a container image. This is effectively the 'modern Linux app philosophy', as supported by systemd et al. It's similar in concept to app bundles, but it also assumes automatic sandboxing.

It's great for games in particular, given that you'll be able to boot up a 10-year-old game container-image as if it were new. (In that way, it's like game emulation, but without the performance drawbacks.) Most other "app" software gets lesser-but-still-significant benefits, in much the same way you see on e.g. the Mac App Store with their self-sandboxing apps.

There's little advantage in distributing system software this way, given that system software is usually full of low-level extension-points that other system software plugs into to achieve the purpose. And this is what can make a platform abstraction layer like Android make sense. With a platform, the system software is all composed together by the platform maker into an underlayer, and a single, clean API is specified atop it. Above the platform abstraction, there doesn't need to be any exposed runtime model for system software—since it's all been encapsulated into the black box of the underlayer. The platform only needs to specify a model for developing+running+distributing app software.

Sometimes things straddle the boundary, though. There are numerous cases of software that has "failed out" of the Mac App Store after a while, because the software is fundamentally a system-software/app-software hybrid, and sandboxing the system-software aspects just didn't work.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

mintplant10y ago· 1 in thread

> The parent is advocating for the Slackware approach—just take whatever's in the upstreams and slam it together—but installed into a container (so all that slamming doesn't conflict with anything), and distributed as a container image.

Have you heard of Nix and NixOS? It doesn't use containers for this, but each package's tree is kept isolated from the others'.

https://nixos.org/nixos/about.html

derefrOP10y ago

Nix is probably the optimal package manager, but it still is a package manager, and so still encodes particular ontological choices that get made differently by different distros at different times.

In other words: I don't just want my game from ten years ago to run; I want my game from ten years ago that was built for a RHEL-alike to run on the Debian-alike I've got today (or maybe even using FreeBSD's Linux-binary support.) Nix can't give me that, except by just being the particular tool that ends up putting together the packages that go into a container-image.

Nix can be used to exactly re-instantiate the same set of files ten years later, presuming the original Nix repo you found the software on was still alive ten years later. In that way, it is similar to creating a container-image. But for this use-case, it doesn't give you anything that the container-image doesn't, while the container-image does give you an assurance that a stable (sandbox-based) interaction model was defined at the time of the image's creation, which can still be used today.

Something that intersected the Nix package-management model with the Mac App Store "only self-sandboxed apps will be accepted" model would be strictly equivalent to containers, though.

kevin_thibedeau10y ago· 1 in thread

GNU Stow gives shell users a great way to build contained applications that can be patched into the traditional filesystem through symlinks, avoiding the uncontrollable spew of files everywhere.

digi_owl10y ago

Or take a look at Gobolinux, that applies that to the whole distro.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse