An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

chaonaut · 2015-04-27 07:00:23

in my LFS days, i built something similar.
and AFAIK, GoboLinux which uses similar approach is still alive.
in fact, it's not that simple, since a lot of software has hardcoded paths in its source code.

MGu3l wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the way Mac OSX works? you move the app to the apps folder [which is placed in the root], also you have a library folder which works as a .config in your home, and you have access and permissions to modify the Applications folder so you can open/edit/ the app or remove it by deleting the icon [which is not an icon but a folder in fact].

well, you're wrong. MacOS does not work this way, it just hides all that *nix system tree from user interface.
GoboLinux has the similar thing called GoboHide (a kernel patch + userspace utility).

moreover, MacOS apps in fact are directory trees with files, they just shown in MacOS UI as some singular entities.
actually, MacOS apps are installed the same way as commercial apps for linux that reside in /opt, every app to its own subtree.

p.s. i should mention that i know all that fun stuff about MacOS internals due to heavy Midnight Commander use

Last edited by chaonaut (2015-04-27 07:14:25)

bstaletic · 2015-04-27 11:56:27

chaonaut wrote:

MacOS does not work this way, it just hides all that *nix system tree from user interface.

Hey, another technical reason not to use Apple software!
Why would anyone hide away file system hierarchy?

drcouzelis · 2015-04-27 14:27:31

Goran wrote:

drcouzelis wrote:
The Haiku operating system does it a bit differently: You just download the HPKG file and drop it into one of the special directories for packages, and the contents get automatically loaded into a read-only directory tree. Uninstallation is just doing the opposite.
I've heard of Haiku, but I never tried it.
Since the system requires things in a special package format, it doesn't really strike me as being simpler.

EVERY package is a "special format", even Arch Linux packages. But instead of using "makepkg" you just use the tools that come with Haiku.

But that's only for package maintainers. For users, it's dead simple: You can either load the GUI package manager (like Synaptic for Linux) and click a single button to install an application, or you can download the package from any website (like was common for Mac OS X users) and simply click-and-drag it into the special directory.

Last edited by drcouzelis (2015-04-27 14:27:43)

Goran · 2015-04-29 00:29:10

drcouzelis wrote:

EVERY package is a "special format"

I know. I'm wondering if it would be possible to create a system in which it doesn't have to be.

GoboLinux and Stali seem promising from that perspective. Unfortunately, both of those projects are dead/dormant.

For users, it's dead simple

It's (seemingly) simple when your desired software is in the repositories, and your package manager can actually install it properly, at the version you truly need. If that's not true, getting the software you want becomes extremely difficult.

It would be nice to have an alternative repository, which provides statically linked binaries (with all their required files) as simple archives, so that you can get what you want/need, even when the package manager can't (for whatever reason).

davcri · 2015-05-01 08:03:15

Interesting discussion Goran! I think that this is one of the main issue of the Desktop Linux ecosystem.
Linus Torvalds himself, discussed this in the DebConf 14, saying that "making binaries for for Linux desktop applications is a pain in the ass" [youtube link]

progandy wrote:

Snappy seems to be the 1:1 translation of this systemd draft:
http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how … stems.html

Thanks for sharing, I read it and I found it very interesting but a little complicated, maybe it's because I never used btrfs and subvolumes.
Is there any news about that ? I think that these guys are focusing on kdbus at the moment right ?

satanselbow · 2015-05-01 08:21:46

Goran wrote:

Let's assume that security is fairly low on my priority list....
Let's assume that I have gigabytes of ram, terabytes of storage...

I'm in! When is beta one going to be ready?

Soukyuu · 2015-05-01 11:18:29

Sounds like the new approach canonical is taking for their experimental ubuntu is what you want: http://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/
Personally, I like it as it is now more than the "windows" way.

Last edited by Soukyuu (2015-05-01 11:20:52)

Odaer · 2015-05-02 15:34:22

No I don't think Canonicals snappy is what the tc wanted. As I understands it they still relays on a platform of external libraries provided by the operating system.

Soukyuu · 2015-05-02 16:17:10

No, it doesn't. Each app comes with all the libraries included in the snappy container.

Odaer · 2015-05-02 17:03:45

from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Sp … onfinement

Apps that depend on a particular framework may reference the framework snap's policy templates and/or groups.

That sounds like a framework similar to what Andorid, Steam or Microsoft uses. The apps is using the resources provided by the framework. The framework is maintained by the framework maintainer not the app developer. This is not what tc proposed.

Last edited by Odaer (2015-05-02 17:10:44)

Soukyuu · 2015-05-02 20:52:03

Well, the link I posted says

Creating snappy Ubuntu apps is much easier than traditional packaging, simply bundle all the files you need in a single package and publish, then users can download it instantly. Snappy packages can be statically linked and include their own copies of any file they need. Developers can use the exact library versions they want, and they get to control when those libraries are changed, or use the core system libraries from Ubuntu if they prefer.

A German article, where I have the news from, also says the snappy packages will allow installing different app versions side by side, allowing an easy downgrade.

progandy · 2015-05-02 20:54:53

Odaer wrote:

from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/Sp … onfinement
Apps that depend on a particular framework may reference the framework snap's policy templates and/or groups.
That sounds like a framework similar to what Andorid, Steam or Microsoft uses. The apps is using the resources provided by the framework. The framework is maintained by the framework maintainer not the app developer. This is not what tc proposed.

You have to draw a line somewhere, for example you want a single display server. You don't want to restart gnome just to change between firefox and libreoffice.

chaonaut · 2015-05-03 07:45:09

Each app comes with all the libraries included in the snappy container.

horrible.
welcome back to the DOS era.

Goran · 2015-05-03 22:01:27

davcri wrote:

Linus Torvalds himself, discussed this in the DebConf 14, saying that "making binaries for for Linux desktop applications is a pain in the ass"

Thanks for the link!

I guess I'm not as crazy as I initially thought, or maybe I'm just as crazy as Linus.

satanselbow wrote:

I'm in! When is beta one going to be ready?

Heh, well, it's not really a project that I can do on my own, so if it all depends on me, probably never.

Soukyuu wrote:

Sounds like the new approach canonical is taking for their experimental ubuntu is what you want: http://developer.ubuntu.com/en/snappy/

I'm not sure, I'll have to look into it.

fsckd · 2015-05-04 00:30:58

Have you seen what Linus made? Crazy, with a capital 'K'.

But seriously, I understand where you are coming from. However, the security implications of what you describe are really bad. But not impossible to solve. See plan9.

blackout23 · 2015-05-09 17:12:16

Instead of bundling the libraries for everything the right runtime environment should be put together dynamically. This is what limba does using OverlayFS.

Concept:
http://blog.tenstral.net/2014/10/listal … ideas.html
http://blog.tenstral.net/2014/11/introd … iment.html

Implementation:
http://blog.tenstral.net/2015/03/limba- … gress.html

Software bundles for applications and library bundles are installed into /opt/software

$ pacaur -S limba-git
# lipa refresh
# lipa install neverball-1.6.0
# lipa list (shows installed [ i ] and available [ a ] packages from the repo).
Last command takes a while to finish, because there is no download progres bar (just open a network monitor). Voila, neverball is installed without interfering with your system.

This still has some of the granularity of of traditional packages, but an app can create the runtime environment it declares. The bundles could also all be built by upstream eliminating the endless repacking that is done by Linux distros. The creator intends to create a webservice similar to the AUR and PyPI for it .https://plus.google.com/+MatthiasKlumpp … Tf8dLbEynP

@Snappy packaing

They won't bundle ALL the libraries that you would see when you run "ldd <some binary>", not even the ones you'd see with "objdump -p <some binary> | grep NEEDED", because there will be a Core install that acts as base (anything in there doesn't need to be bundled) and there will also be frameworks. The increased disk space requirement seems to be an entirely academic problem these days. I'd be surprised if the disk space usage would even grow by 50%.

Last edited by blackout23 (2015-05-09 17:17:53)

Rukiri · 2015-05-22 03:13:11

I mean nixos was already brought up, but Linux From Scratch if you want a purely metal Linux experience, fair warning it will take about 5-10X longer than a Gentoo Installation.

davcri · 2015-06-28 16:51:21

This could be interesting: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n … ing-System

xdg-app is a desktop and distribution-independent application bundling and system for Linux. It uses user namespaces and the kernel container technologies to run applications in a sandboxed environment without any kind of root privileges or setuid required. It also features a user-space dbus filter with policies that are compatible with kdbus.

Arch Linux

#26 2015-04-27 07:00:23

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#27 2015-04-27 11:56:27

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#28 2015-04-27 14:27:31

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#29 2015-04-29 00:29:10

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#30 2015-05-01 08:03:15

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#31 2015-05-01 08:21:46

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#32 2015-05-01 11:18:29

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#33 2015-05-02 15:34:22

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#34 2015-05-02 16:17:10

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#35 2015-05-02 17:03:45

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#36 2015-05-02 20:52:03

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#37 2015-05-02 20:54:53

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#38 2015-05-03 07:45:09

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#39 2015-05-03 22:01:27

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#40 2015-05-04 00:30:58

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#41 2015-05-09 17:12:16

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#42 2015-05-22 03:13:11

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

#43 2015-06-28 16:51:21

Re: An idea for a simplified Linux distro.

Board footer