TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Canonical bringing Snappy Ubuntu to phone and desktop

117 点作者 Beacon11超过 9 年前

5 条评论

CSDude超过 9 年前
We have evaluated Snappy a lot. In Snappy you can only share executables as dependencies, not librarires. So, you can use curl as a program, however if you want to use libcurl in your application, you have to include the library in package. When this list goes large, you have to keep track of the state of the every dependency you include. Bugfixes, security patches.. However, in regular package managers, you can also depend on libraries. And this solves a lot of headache, since those packages are shared globally and updated by system. I have almost never seen a backwards incompability caused by an update (some program needs to update liba, but some other program cannot use that upper version), it happens very rarely.<p>If you insist of using a specific library version, there is nothing stopping you from including it in your package , like snappy&#x27;s.<p>Lastly, when you include libc a million times, or static compile your binaries, the size goes up and storage&#x2F;bandwith also becomes an issue.<p>I agree that Snappy solves some problems, but introduces new serious ones as well.
评论 #10508748 未加载
评论 #10508787 未加载
评论 #10510224 未加载
edude03超过 9 年前
Slightly off topic, but I&#x27;m really frustrated with the state of software packaging these days. Every solution tries to solve the same problems (reliable dependancy resolution, reliable installation and removal) but they all try and solve it in different incompatible and flawed ways.<p>Consider the following: I need a reliable way to deploy my app to clients.<p>The popular options are: 1) Source code + Configuration system (automake for example) 2) Binaries built for popular platforms (debs, rpms, exes) 3) Docker Image<p>Source code means that the client needs the whole build tool chain, which might be quite + computationally expensive (especially on mobile)<p>packages have to be built and maintained, and don&#x27;t fully solve the dependancy issues (IE I might expect Ubuntu 14.04 to have a specific version of libc, but the user might have upgraded it, and I can&#x27;t install my own incompatible version)<p>and of course docker, ship my clients a operating system and require them to have and know how to configure the runtime so they can run my 1mb compiled binary. Also doesn&#x27;t work on embedded devices.<p>Ideally, in the future most distributions will move to functional package managers, and at least for mobile will have binaries for every possible version of dependencies available, but at the moment that&#x27;s just a pipe dream and things like snappy don&#x27;t get us any closer to that
评论 #10508186 未加载
评论 #10507774 未加载
评论 #10508099 未加载
评论 #10509696 未加载
评论 #10508334 未加载
评论 #10508076 未加载
评论 #10507762 未加载
评论 #10509488 未加载
评论 #10507767 未加载
davidw超过 9 年前
I wish they&#x27;d just focus on making Ubuntu <i>work</i>. I mean, look at one of the flagship Ubuntu laptops, by Dell:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.community.dell.com&#x2F;techcenter&#x2F;os-applications&#x2F;f&#x2F;4613" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.community.dell.com&#x2F;techcenter&#x2F;os-applications&#x2F;f&#x2F;46...</a><p>I&#x27;ll still buy the things, because it&#x27;s important to me to put my money where my mouth is, but it looks like it could use some significant investment to make it a better product.
评论 #10509564 未加载
grabcocque超过 9 年前
I had a feeling this would happen. Containerisation as a trend has just as much to offer desktop OSes as it does for cloud clusters.
评论 #10507216 未加载
rdtsc超过 9 年前
Has anyone evaluated this vs NixOS (<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nixos.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nixos.org&#x2F;</a>) ?<p>They seem to have some overlap and I&#x27;ve heard good things about NixOS, I like the theory behind it, but I find its Haskell-based configuration language hard to understand.
评论 #10509046 未加载