• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, it is awesome, I’m just saying that supporting that is a big ask for a software vendor, so containerizing dependencies is a viable workaround.

    • jabjoe@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m always going to see it as second class and avoid that software when ever I can. I see it as symptom of either rotting software or poor developers.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Perhaps you should consider the alternative, that it’s the lack of consistent dependencies across target distributions that’s the problem. Some of it is certainly fixable on the development side, but a lot of it is just the complexity of managing a software project that is expected to run in multiple very different environments.

        • jabjoe@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think the diversity is a strength. It means thing don’t fail the same way, try different new things, and tests things from more angles. Different distro are good. BSD is good for Linux.

            • jabjoe@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sounds like something not ready for production to me. If it is not maintainable without nailing down it’s dependencies, it’s got a problem. I much prefer the reproducable packages direction. Seams a way more maintainable and open, approach.