[1718627440]

> (I think Windows does it waaay better but ymmv)

Can you elaborate on that?

Btw., I don't want to bash Windows here, I think the Windows core OS developers are (one of) the only good developers at Microsoft. The NT kernel is widely praised for its quality and the actual OS seems to be really solid. They just happen to also have lots of shitty company sections that release crappy software and bundle malware, ads and telemetry with the actual OS.

[forrestthewoods]

Windows 11 Pro with O&O Shutup is perfectly fine. You’re not wrong and the trend is concerning.

But on the actual topic. I think “Linux” does a few things way worse. (Technically not Linux but GCC/Clang blah blah blah).

Linux does at least three dumb things. 1) Treat static/dynamic linking the same 2) No import line 3) global system shared libraries.

All three are bad. Shared/dynamkc libraries should be black boxes. Import libs are just objectively superior to the pure hell that is linking an old version of glibc. And big ball or global shared libraries is such a catastrophic failure that Docker was invented to hack around it.

[1718627440]

Can you write that so, that people who are dumb and don't know the Windows way also get it?

[forrestthewoods]

> Treat static/dynamic linking the same

Imagine you have an executable with a random library that has a global variable. Now you have a shared/dynamic library that just so happens to use that library deep in its bowels. It's not in the public API, it's an implementation detail. Is the global variable shared across the exe and shared lib or not? On Linux it's shared, on Windows its not.

I think the Windows way is better. Things randomly breaking because different DLLs randomly used the same symbol under the hood is super dumb imho. Treating them as black boxes is better. IMHO. YMMV.

> No import lib (typo! lib, not line)

In Linux (not the kernal blah blah blah) when you link a shared library - like glibc - you typically link the actual shared library. So on your build machine you pass /path/to/glibc.so as an argument. Then when your program runs it dynamically loads whatever version of glibc.so is on that machine.

On Windows you don't link against foo.dll. Instead you link against a thin, small import lib called (ideally) foo.imp.lib.

This is better for a few reasons. For one, when you're building a program that intends to use a shared library you shouldn't actually require a full copy of that lib. It's strictly unnecessary by definition.

Linux (gcc/clang blah blah blah) makes it really hard to cross-compile and really hard to link against older versions of a library than is on your system. It should be trivial to link against glibc2.15 even if your system is on glibc2.40.

> global system shared libraries

The Linux Way is to install shared libraries into the global path. This way when openssl has a security vuln you only need to update one library instead of recompile all programs.

This architecture has proven - imho objectively - to be an abject and catastrophic failure. It's so bad that the world invented Docker so that a big complicated expensive slow packaging step has to be performed just to reliably run a program with all its dependencies.

Linux Dependency Hell is 100x worse than Windows DLL Hell. In Windows the Microsoft system libraries are ultra stable. And virtually nothing gets installed into the global path. Computer programs then simply include the DLLs and dependencies they need. Which is roughly what Docker does. But Docker comes with a lot of other baggage and complexity that honestly just isn't needed.

These are my opinions. They are not held by the majority of HN commenters. But I stand by all of them! Not mentioned is that Windows has significantly better profilers and debuggers than Linux. That may change in the next two years.

Also, super duper unpopular opinion, but bash sucks and any script longer than 10 lines should be written in a real language with a debugger.

[1718627440]

> On Linux it's shared, on Windows its not.

Yes, the default compiler invocation makes all symbols exported. But leaving it like that is super lazy, it will likely break things (like you wrote). You can change the default with -fvisibility=[default|internal|hidden|protected] and it's kind of expected that you do. Oh, and I just found out that GCC has -fvisibility-ms-compat, to make it work like the MS compiler.

> Instead you link against a thin, small import lib called (ideally) foo.imp.lib.

Interesting. How is that file created? Is it created automatically, when you build foo.dll? How is it shipped? Is it generally distributed with foo.dll, because then I don't really see the benefit of linking against foo2.15.imp.lib compared to foo2.15.dll.

> It should be trivial to link against glibc2.15 even if your system is on glibc2.40.

It don't know if you know that, but on Linux glibc2.40 is not really only version 2.40. It includes all the versions up to 2.40. When you link against a symbol that was last changed in 2.15, you link against glibc2.15, not against glibc2.40. If you only use symbols from glibc2.15, then you have effectively linked the complete program against glibc2.15.

But yes, enforcing this should be trivial. I think this a common complaint.

> The Linux Way is to install shared libraries into the global path.

Only in so far, as on Windows you put the libraries into 'C:\Program Files\PROGRAM\' and on Linux into '/usr/lib/PROGRAM/'. You of course shouldn't dump all your libraries into '/usr/lib'. That's different when you install a library by itself. I don't know how common that is on Windows?

I don't really know what problems you have in mind, but it seems like you think a program would have a dependency on 'libfoo.so', so at runtime it could randomly break by getting linked against another libfoo, that happens to be in the library path. But that is not the case, you link against '/usr/lib/foo.so.6'. Relying on runtime environment paths for linking is as bad as calling execve("bash foo") and this is a security bug. Paths are for the user, so that he doesn't need to specify the full path, not for programs to use for dependency management. Also when you don't want updates to minor versions, then you can link to '/usr/lib/foo.so.6.2'. And when you don't want bugfixes, you can link against '/usr/lib/foo.so.6.2.15', but that would be super dumb in my opinion. On Linux ABIs have there own versions differently from the library versions, I agree that this can be confusing for newcomers.

A fundamentally difference is also that there is a single entity controlling installation on Linux. It is the responsibility of the OS to install programs, bypassing that just creates a huge mess. I think that is the better way and both Apple and Microsoft are moving to that way, but likely for other reasons (corporate control). This doesn't mean, that the user can't install his own programs which aren't included in the OS repository. OS repository != OS package manager. I think when you can bother to create foo-installer.exe, you should also create foo.deb . Extracting foo.zip into C:\ is also a dumb idea, yet some people think it suddenly isn't dumb anymore when doing it on Linux.

PIP and similar projects are a bad idea, in my opinion. When someone wants to create their own package system breaking the OS, they should have at least the decency to roll it in /opt. Actually that is not a problem in Python proper. They have essentially solved that for decades and all that dance with venv, uv and what else is completely unnecessary. You can install different Python installation into the OS path. Python installs into /usr/bin/python3.x and creates /usr/lib/python3.x/ by default. Each python version will only use the appropriate libraries. That's my unpopular opinion. That mess is why Docker was created, but in my opinion that does not come from following the Linux way, but by actively sabotaging it.

> Also, super duper unpopular opinion, but bash sucks and any script longer than 10 lines should be written in a real language with a debugger.

Bash's purpose is to cobble programs together and setup pipes and process hierarchies and job control. It excels at this task. Using it for anything else sucks, but I don't think that is widely disputed.

[forrestthewoods]

> You can change the default

My unfortunate experience is that changing the default just breaks other things.

I really blame C++ as the root evil. This type of behavior really really ought to be part of the language spec. It’s super weird that it’s not.

> How is [foo.imp.lib] file created?

When the DLL is compiled

> I don't really see the benefit of linking against foo2.15.imp.lib compared to foo2.15.dll

The short version is “because the whole file isn’t actually necessary”.

Zig moves mountains to make cross-compiling possible. Linux is BY FAR the hardest platform to crosscompile for. macOS and Linuxate trivial. Linux it’s alllllmost impossible. Part of their trick to make it possible is to generate stub .so files which are effectively import libs. Which is what should have been used all along! https://andrewkelley.me/post/zig-cc-powerful-drop-in-replace...

> When you link against a symbol that was last changed in 2.15, you link against glibc2.15, not against glibc2.40. If you only use symbols from glibc2.15, then you have effectively linked the complete program against glibc2.15.

It really really needs to be explicit. It’s otherwise impossible to control. And hard to understand where a newer symbol is coming from.

> on Windows you put the libraries into 'C:\Program Files\PROGRAM\'

It is relatively rare for a program in Program Files to add itself to the PATH.

> they should have at least the decency to roll it in /opt

I think folders like /opt and /usr/lib are pure evil. Programs should include their %{#^]{}^]+}*}^ dependencies.

uv solves a lot of the Python problems. Every project gets to define its own version of Python and own collection of libraries with whatever god forsaken version resolution. Having /usr/lib/python3.x is a failure state.

[matheusmoreira]

Linux does none of those things. That's user space stuff. Linux loads your ELF and jumps to its entry point. That's it.

Linux is so great you're actually free to remake the entire user space in your image if you want. It's the only kernel that lets you do it, all the others force you to go through C library nonsense, including Windows.

The glibc madness you described is just a convention, kept in place by inertia. You absolutely can trash glibc if you want to. I too have a vision for Linux user space and am working towards realizing it. Nothing will happen unless someone puts the work in.

[forrestthewoods]

Yes that’s all filed under blah blah blah.

Some people use “Linux” to exclusively refer to the Linux kernel. Most people do not.

[1718627440]

Linux by default does mean Linux kernel, but in my reply I didn't cared about that either. When all know what is meant, that is fine in my opinion.

I think it is important to have GNU/Linux in mind, because there are OSs that don't use glibc and work totally different, so none of your complaints apply. But yes, most people think of GNU/Linux, when you tell them about Linux.

It is also relevant to consider that there is no OS called GNU/Linux. The OSs are called Debian, Arch, OpenSuSE, Fedora, ... . It is fine for different OS to have differently working runtime linkers and installation methods, but some people act surprised when they find out ignoring that doesn't work.