Windows 11 is dying....

[tatel]

I hope you don't have problems anymore while upgrading Linux...

[nctnico]

Libre office offers two Linux downloads.  "Deb" and "RPM".  That covers you for "Debian based", eg, Ubunutu where "apt" uses "dPkg" underneath and thats "Debian Package manager".  The RPM will cover you for most "Red Hat based" distros, as its the Redhat Package Manager.

There is a link to other options including source code installation.

Even if you have  "debian based" distro.  Those .deb files willl make "linkage" stipulations.  In about 60% of causes your distro will pull in cross link compat versions into "slotted libs" style (all behind the scenes).  In maybe 35% of cases you can symlink two library versions and never have an issue... the remaining 5% ... pain.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about the package manager complications. Makes Windows installations look easy.

Well, Paulca goes off the beaten path here. Debian comes with Libreoffice out of the box. It doesn't get any easier.

[SteveThackery]

Truncated:..... Windows zealots will just babble his way out of this point, so the argument stops here......

When you find a Windows zealot, take a picture of the Sasquatch standing next to them (may be the same entity) and pick up some Jackalope sandwich meat (yum). Last I heard, someone spotted one riding the Loch Ness Monster, so that's a good place to go looking.

Well said! Windows users are too sensible to indulge in zealotry. That's the reserve of the swivel-eyed Linux loons. Windows users do their work, catch up with their socials, then switch off their computer and think about important stuff like family, hobbies, the ballgame.

[Randy222]

Windows 12 2027.
All windows die, eventually.

So does every other OS.

The diff between windows and linux, is even old versions of linux can be self maintained, windows/crapple not.

[paulca]

Libre office offers two Linux downloads.  "Deb" and "RPM".  That covers you for "Debian based", eg, Ubunutu where "apt" uses "dPkg" underneath and thats "Debian Package manager".  The RPM will cover you for most "Red Hat based" distros, as its the Redhat Package Manager.

There is a link to other options including source code installation.

Even if you have  "debian based" distro.  Those .deb files willl make "linkage" stipulations.  In about 60% of causes your distro will pull in cross link compat versions into "slotted libs" style (all behind the scenes).  In maybe 35% of cases you can symlink two library versions and never have an issue... the remaining 5% ... pain.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about the package manager complications. Makes Windows installations look easy.

It gets interesting when you compare the "Release package" contents between the two platforms.  Windows binaries tend to be quite large.  They tend to include a lot of "glue libary" code and often statically linked dependencies.  They tend to be more "self contained".  Rarely do they ask for dependencies they don't install themselves as part of their own release bundle.  If they do, it's usually OS level components like a DotNet runtime version or similar.

Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself.  You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself.  Especially in the Linux world were those dependencies are "free[tm]".  Take a package like Libre Office and look at it's dep's tree is fairly terrifying if you are the one compiling it from source.  I remember doing "Star Office" and the other monster was "Mozilla", aka pre-Firefox.  They required everything under the sun and wanted 2Gb of diskspace to build in.  Star Office took 28 hours to compile on a 600Mhz Celeron.  Firefox ran out of diskspace after 8 hours the first time.  After this.... I moved to binary distros.

[Karel]

"What do you anticipate Microsoft will do next?"

Microsoft will switch to Linux and keep selling their software on top of Linux. And it will cost the Windows users as much as before.
At the same time will the Linux community get face-stomped by hordes of Windows users, all trying to learn everything there is to
learn about Linux and in record-breaking time.
Some long-time Linux supporters will switch to Microsoft in a heart beat like cold-hearted back-stabbers, while others die
the slow death of the White Knight in the most epic drama the Linux community has ever seen, before the Linux
community itself disappears and we will all have turned into "the new Windows user".

Once it's all done and over, and Microsoft has taken over Linux with its hordes of Windows users, will you either be the
new slave of the Microsoft empire or you will have found refuge under a tiny bridge, just next to the one where all the
FreeBSD trolls live, and where you'll then be telling tales of Linux's past.

[nctnico]

Libre office offers two Linux downloads.  "Deb" and "RPM".  That covers you for "Debian based", eg, Ubunutu where "apt" uses "dPkg" underneath and thats "Debian Package manager".  The RPM will cover you for most "Red Hat based" distros, as its the Redhat Package Manager.

There is a link to other options including source code installation.

Even if you have  "debian based" distro.  Those .deb files willl make "linkage" stipulations.  In about 60% of causes your distro will pull in cross link compat versions into "slotted libs" style (all behind the scenes).  In maybe 35% of cases you can symlink two library versions and never have an issue... the remaining 5% ... pain.

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten about the package manager complications. Makes Windows installations look easy.

It gets interesting when you compare the "Release package" contents between the two platforms.  Windows binaries tend to be quite large.  They tend to include a lot of "glue libary" code and often statically linked dependencies.  They tend to be more "self contained".  Rarely do they ask for dependencies they don't install themselves as part of their own release bundle.  If they do, it's usually OS level components like a DotNet runtime version or similar.

Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself.  You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself.

No. Definitely not. The dependencies are described in the packages. Tools like apt will figure out what all the dependencies are and what other packages are needed which aren't on the system already. Especially Debian packages (from a stable or formerly stable release) have perfected this to a level where every package you install just works. Alternatively, generic (commercial) software just comes with their own set of system libraries which assume a minimum level of Libc and X-Windows support and go from there.

[Randy222]

Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself. You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself.  Especially in the Linux world were those dependencies are "free[tm]".  Take a package like Libre Office and look at it's dep's tree is fairly terrifying if you are the one compiling it from source.  I remember doing "Star Office" and the other monster was "Mozilla", aka pre-Firefox.  They required everything under the sun and wanted 2Gb of diskspace to build in.  Star Office took 28 hours to compile on a 600Mhz Celeron.  Firefox ran out of diskspace after 8 hours the first time.  After this.... I moved to binary distros.

Huh? I install stuff all the time on Linux distros, and it will install/link dependencies as needed. In deb world, "apt install", that's it.
Compiling from source "issue", can also be applied to windows too. Some things are built so it can be used on many platforms.

Just as Windows has it's Windows Update repo ecosystem, Linux has it's distro repo ecosystem. No difference, except what's there to get.

[John B]

Interested newcomers to Linux are likely to get a wildly inaccurate picture of the situation by reading much of the information here. By far the most common distro model is where it has a package manager that handles a dependency tree, specifying which packages need what, and what min/max version it can use. Common software is all packaged as a binary.

Even on the AUR, where I cautiously use some built from source code, it's handled by helper tools that create a package to be handled by pacman anyways.

[tom66]

Building from source is a bit of a nightmare on Linux but arguably is not much easier on Windows since there are so many different types of build chain. Some Windows apps use MSVC++, others use MINGW, and then there are the weird ones based on C#/Mono/etc, some using Java with a special JVM buried on the Sun archived website somewhere and I'm sure Visual Basic is still in use by someone because why the f-not.

It's just because Windows is such a 'stable' platform in terms of backwards compatibility that 'EXEs' do tend to just 'work' as long as the system is fairly standard.  This does create other nightmares for Windows devs though as it means you get weird holdovers like path names being limited to 252 characters unless the application is built to handle more (and even then not all Windows APIs handle long path names, so consequentially some applications can't access files created by other applications.)  Linux doesn't suffer such headaches because almost every application that runs on Linux is (a) at least source-available and (b) applications have to target the distribution's binary API; there's some backwards compatibility but it's not guaranteed.

The biggest problem with Linux building is it seems it is the hobby of so many developers to create yet another build system.  You have good-old-configure-and-Makefiles, CMake, Meson, Ninja, automake, Maven, ant...  I am not sure what each solves that the other that came before it did not, but you need to learn to navigate all of these.  Fortunately, I've found AI tooling very useful here.

[Cyclotron]

The Linux evangelist would have you believe that Microsoft is the evil empire full stop. And while MS has and certainly does fit that discription they are far from the only ones.  Linux also won and no one noticed. It's also primarily controlled by evil empire companies. Windows is a standing champ on computer desktops but users have long ago abandoned the desktop as the only or even their primary way of digitally interfacing with the world.

There's about 1.5 billion Windows users; 4-5 billion Linux users all Linux Based end user compute included; BSD even has Windows beat given that between MacOS and iOS Darwin/MACH Kernel/BSD has about 2-2.5 billion users. I've not included the China and North Korea country OSes. The most popular Linux in China looks exactly like Windows XP from my understanding. North Korea use Linux to spy on their citizens and if you try to defeat it, your OS rats you out, it also tags USB media to track dissidents and how information flows by sneaker net.

MS is the king of adopt, extend, puke profit from selling you Office products. Google is the King of selling you.  Apple the king of monetizing everything including the usb cable.  All "evil" empire if you ask me.

Linux can and often is as locked down as Windows and more. You jail break an Android system and your bank's app very well might not work for good reason. Try to jail break your Linux Citizen OS in some countries will get you in Jail or shot.

Microsoft Windows is dying, its always dying just like all other code, it rots. I saw mentioned that you can run old Linux, and just the same you can run old Windows, old Macos, old OS2, MSDOS. But unless you're willing to write your own security back ports on each, good luck with that. Linux crap like Windows crap, and MacOS crap has an EOL.

What's the biggest controlling companies of Linux?  Amazon, EQT partners, Intel/AMD, Microsoft (they even have their own distro), IBM (redhat), Conical, and the big bad Google. I don't see an angel in the list, do you?

Nobody cares about any of it but the holly war warriors.

[paulca]

Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself. You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself.  Especially in the Linux world were those dependencies are "free[tm]".  Take a package like Libre Office and look at it's dep's tree is fairly terrifying if you are the one compiling it from source.  I remember doing "Star Office" and the other monster was "Mozilla", aka pre-Firefox.  They required everything under the sun and wanted 2Gb of diskspace to build in.  Star Office took 28 hours to compile on a 600Mhz Celeron.  Firefox ran out of diskspace after 8 hours the first time.  After this.... I moved to binary distros.

Huh? I install stuff all the time on Linux distros, and it will install/link dependencies as needed. In deb world, "apt install", that's it.
Compiling from source "issue", can also be applied to windows too. Some things are built so it can be used on many platforms.

Just as Windows has it's Windows Update repo ecosystem, Linux has it's distro repo ecosystem. No difference, except what's there to get.

They are not the same thing.  Not by  along shot.  The windows update eco-system would be more like a single vendors package archive on FTP in comparison.  The kernel, GLibc, some runtimes a few demo apps like those that come with X11 or KDE.  Thats windows right there.

"apt install" is doing the bit I spoke of.  Apt is not part of your release package.  So "you" in this case is just your distro maintainer.  They are doing it for you.  Just to break the rules to give you an easy time.  Unix is not binary compatible.  Never was.  Never itntended to be and almost unachievable.  The distro's "cheat" by, as I said using a "mother system", which they then slice up once it's in one peice.

EDIT:  Note.  The release packages DO NOT" contain ANY reference information or meta data about their dependencies..  Not unless you call reading the configure script and AUTOCONF et. al. to find out.  Creation of those meta data links between packages is done by the distro and is distro specific.  Non transferable.

Yes.  99% of the time its just "apt install" or "apt update -y && apt -y upgrade" if you are that way inclined.

However.  Just try and leave a system without updates for longer than say 6 months and go try again.  You wil[l start to see it come apart.  The maintenance costs of such a system are staggering.  When it's voluntary and highly available due to "excitement" from the community, it's fine.  When it starts to move into "chore" land, or the distro starts to get "commercially serious", then the true costs of maintaining that tree appear.

The result is most of the cases I have watched, "retention period" drops...

So, I wanted to upgrade a docker host last week.  It's a tiny simple little server and so I did a flat "upgrade" on it.

FAILED!  Nasty, nasty very unfriendly error.  But I have been doing this a while, so it "smelt" like a package in the upgrade chain had been removed.  Apt then conflicts with it's own missing version causing a circular dependency lock.  The solution is the "T-Cell" approach.  If it complains, delete it.  Keep going.  Then add things you removed back once it is upgrading.

To explain.... 

You have version 1.2.3
You have had that version for a year.
Since you installed it, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.4.1 have all been released.
Last month, all the 1.2 apt stubs got culled.

So previously the system knew how to get from 1.2.3 to 1.4.1 via the intermediates, if needed.  However, when you run update and try and pull in 1.4.1 it does not have a lineage of upgrade anymore.  It has no "1.2.3 -> 1.4.1" process or proceedure.  It doesn't even have metadata for your 1.2.3 version AT ALL!

This often results in conflicts.  The inabiity to potentially uninstall that package.  Cyclic dependency locks.  Etc. etc.

That retention period is getting shorter and shorter and Ubuntu at least are starting to make noises like "UPDATES WILL BE FORCED AND AUTOMATIC!"  ... "It's for your security".  is BS.  It's because they don't want to maintain long retention policies on versions anymore.

[PlainName]

This often results in conflicts.  The inabiity to potentially uninstall that package.  Cyclic dependency locks.  Etc. etc.

I get this. Run a VM or two for specific purposes and every is fine. Runs well, forget about it. Some time later there's an error email that some repo can't be reached. Eventually delete the VM and start again from scratch.

[paulca]

This often results in conflicts.  The inabiity to potentially uninstall that package.  Cyclic dependency locks.  Etc. etc.

I get this. Run a VM or two for specific purposes and every is fine. Runs well, forget about it. Some time later there's an error email that some repo can't be reached. Eventually delete the VM and start again from scratch.

I have seen it too many times.  6 months is about the spot where a full upgrade will start to throw curve balls.  A year and you are very likely to run into issues.

PackageA 1.2.3 wants Lib5.6.7

The upgrade process sees your stated request for "PackageA" and resolves the latest as package 1.4.1.  It also fails to find a PackageA 1.2.3 stub/metadata.

Without that stub in the dependency resolver, it starts with that package not existing on the system.

It then proceeds to install "Lib8.9.0" ... which conflicts with the already installed Lib5.6.7 which is being used by packageA.  But to it PackageA no longer exists, so it doesn't matter how many times you go back through the process it will still attempt to install things ina  conflicting order with reference to PackageA and probably Lib5.6.7 as it's likely expired to.

In a "Happy path".  All installed versions resolve to actual meta data and all of it is loaded and passed through the same dep grapher.  It can rearrange the ordering to smoothly transition, even hopping an intermediary version if needed to bridge cyclics.

I suppose it can be worse.  It usually "detects" the conflict and stops itself from corrupting the entire system by just forcing in a new key library.  I have personally done that one to myself.  A library used by GCC no less.  gcc: Failed to load so xxxxxx.so

Fixing that one on a source compiled system... when the compiler won't run.. that was fun.  I worked out a few ways back, but took the easier option and rebuilt the whole thing again.

As a "mini tip"!  Break the rules.  When you want to upgrade your system, DO NOT, start with "apt update".  Instead, start with apt upgrade.  Make sure you are fully upto date with your OLD apt meta files.  Then pull the new ones.  Often you will have done the apt update, then installed a single package.  So you may already have a good intermediary upgrade point to use!  Right up until you run apt update.

EDIT:  My virtual host offers the ability to create "Templates" for VMs and LXCs.  This seems like a GREAT idea.  Take a base install, add and configure all the things your way, save the template.

Except... 6 months later when you want one of these, you first need to ... create an instance of the template.  Upgrade everything.  Fix it again.  Then save it back as a template... then clone your new system. 

Sort of defeats the purpose. 

The "compliance" option....  a cron job to run apt update and apt upgrade and email you the results.  Good luck.

[SteveThackery]

Microsoft Windows is dying, its always dying just like all other code, it rots.

Can you explain what you mean? I ask because of course code - source or executable - is definitely not subject to anything resembling "rot".

Or do you mean that ongoing changes, such as adding new features, lead to the code gradually becoming less "clean" as new stuff is bolted on wherever it will fit, gradually undermining the original, elegant, architecture?

If it's the latter, then this is where Windows has an advantage over Linux. The Windows OS, as well as the big application suites, are subject to continuous scrap-and-rewrite activity involving hundreds of coders working continuously. This is necessary to keep the code clean and maintainable as new features are added. The most recent example was the Windows 11 Start menu and taskbar. The taskbar code was brand new, and it was obvious because it lost a lot of functionality - for example the W11 taskbar could not be repositioned to the side of the screen. A Microsoft spokesperson at the time said adding that feature would lead to excessive complication of the code.

Alas Linux cannot compete in that respect. Relatively little money is generated by the OS or the apps, so it's just not feasible to pay for hundreds of coders working full time on the software, especially for the apps. So features get bolted on here and there, and the code starts to look and feel messy, including at the UI level.

Is that what you meant by "code rot"?

[Cyclotron]

Microsoft Windows is dying, its always dying just like all other code, it rots.

Can you explain what you mean?....

It's just a poor way of saying that code has to be maintained.  OSs like us are born and eventually EOL. 

In a perfect world, you'd get the one OS that you just loved and someone would just patch it and fix bugs and security issues till they were all gone and it would be perfect and then there's no "rot" or EOL. 

On the issue of feature "lint" and drift from original architecture, I agree that happens too. I think that has traditionally happened more in Windows simply because it remains on a version so long.  XP lasted forever and really, XP and XP SP3 were nowhere near the same OS except for their name.

Linux eventually caught up to having more stability by creating the LTS versions.  And now that's become a common practice even in Windows.  XP was the OG LTS.

Squirrel! I went off down the road there. Apologies for the less than clear intent of my statement. I hope this clears it up.

[paulca]

Once upon a time there was an int.  He could be signed and unsigned and he was exactly 8 bits in length.

Then one day he woke up and was 16bit long and promptly crashed the bank systems.

Code rots.

[nctnico]

Compared to Unix/Linux where the package itself contains nothing but the package itself. You are left to find/install/link the dependencies yourself.  Especially in the Linux world were those dependencies are "free[tm]".  Take a package like Libre Office and look at it's dep's tree is fairly terrifying if you are the one compiling it from source.  I remember doing "Star Office" and the other monster was "Mozilla", aka pre-Firefox.  They required everything under the sun and wanted 2Gb of diskspace to build in.  Star Office took 28 hours to compile on a 600Mhz Celeron.  Firefox ran out of diskspace after 8 hours the first time.  After this.... I moved to binary distros.

Huh? I install stuff all the time on Linux distros, and it will install/link dependencies as needed. In deb world, "apt install", that's it.
Compiling from source "issue", can also be applied to windows too. Some things are built so it can be used on many platforms.

Just as Windows has it's Windows Update repo ecosystem, Linux has it's distro repo ecosystem. No difference, except what's there to get.

They are not the same thing.  Not by  along shot.  The windows update eco-system would be more like a single vendors package archive on FTP in comparison.  The kernel, GLibc, some runtimes a few demo apps like those that come with X11 or KDE.  Thats windows right there.

"apt install" is doing the bit I spoke of.  Apt is not part of your release package.  So "you" in this case is just your distro maintainer.  They are doing it for you.  Just to break the rules to give you an easy time.  Unix is not binary compatible.  Never was.  Never itntended to be and almost unachievable.  The distro's "cheat" by, as I said using a "mother system", which they then slice up once it's in one peice.

EDIT:  Note.  The release packages DO NOT" contain ANY reference information or meta data about their dependencies..  Not unless you call reading the configure script and AUTOCONF et. al. to find out.  Creation of those meta data links between packages is done by the distro and is distro specific.  Non transferable.

Yes.  99% of the time its just "apt install" or "apt update -y && apt -y upgrade" if you are that way inclined.

However.  Just try and leave a system without updates for longer than say 6 months and go try again.  You wil[l start to see it come apart.  The maintenance costs of such a system are staggering.  When it's voluntary and highly available due to "excitement" from the community, it's fine.  When it starts to move into "chore" land, or the distro starts to get "commercially serious", then the true costs of maintaining that tree appear.

To explain.... 

You have version 1.2.3
You have had that version for a year.
Since you installed it, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.3.0, 1.3.1, 1.4.1 have all been released.
Last month, all the 1.2 apt stubs got culled.

That is because you use a distribution which has problems like that. Debian has always been way more serious about keeping old versions alive and upgrade paths in place. Upgrading a machine from a version about 6 to 10 years old is doable and pretty much painless (been there, done that).

[PlainName]

Upgrading a machine from a version about 6 to 10 years old is doable and pretty much painless (been there, done that).

You can upgrade Windows from over 20 years ago, not a problem. Indeed, the issue is stopping it from updating 

Seriously for a moment, being able to upgrade is one thing, but wanting to is quite another. Wasn't there a fuss some time back about some distro using a phone UI for everything, so obviously you might not want to subject your desktop to that. Also, many apps (and particularly online ones) tend to completely change how they work and if you're used to the previous version you might want to stay with what you know and like. Having to relearn where everything is and finding it won't do something it once did is something you can't avoid with forced updates.

[nctnico]

Upgrading a machine from a version about 6 to 10 years old is doable and pretty much painless (been there, done that).

You can upgrade Windows from over 20 years ago, not a problem. Indeed, the issue is stopping it from updating 

Seriously for a moment, being able to upgrade is one thing, but wanting to is quite another. Wasn't there a fuss some time back about some distro using a phone UI for everything, so obviously you might not want to subject your desktop to that. Also, many apps (and particularly online ones) tend to completely change how they work and if you're used to the previous version you might want to stay with what you know and like.

That is true. On Linux the Gnome UI design has been moving in the wrong direction like tiled windows and focussing on a workflow where you having a single application fullscreen and no overview of which applications are running. Typically I have 20+ windows / programs open for various ongoing tasks. I like to have a taskbar. Fortunately there are Gnome add-ons that let you keep old behaviour. Also the poor distinction between the active window and background is something I keep tripping over. Also disabling font anti-aliasing and while left with readable text is getting harder and harder. Text with anti-aliasing gives me an instant headache. Not everything is an improvement. I only upgrade when I need to run software which needs newer libraries and compiling the required libraries from source is too much hassle. But then again, there is always the option to use a different Window managers.

[SteveThackery]

Once upon a time there was an int.  He could be signed and unsigned and he was exactly 8 bits in length.

Then one day he woke up and was 16bit long and promptly crashed the bank systems.

Code rots.

Except the code didn't rot - it was deliberately changed by someone who (apparently) didn’t know what they were doing. That isn't "rotting", it's "poisoning". Different thing altogether.

[SteveThackery]

Also the poor distinction between the active window and background is something I keep tripping over.

Actually that's something I hate about Windows. At one time the active window had a coloured title bar, and all the other windows had a pale, desaturated title bar. It was instantly obvious which was the active window. Since the passing of W7, that distinction has almost completely disappeared. Now my email program is literally identical in appearance whether it is the active window or not.

[Langdon]

I have not watched the video, then to avoid click bait vids if I can. Can somone who has watched it give some context to what its rambling on about.

I think it is an AI generated video. Spelling errors and usage of random video fragments based on context. And it seems it is just a rant against Windows 11. Some Googling tells me South Korea decided to ditch Windows in 2020 and finalise the migration to Linux in 2026.

Most agreed.

Not just AI generated, pure AI without any review by a human.

Weird, random, sporadic sentance fragments make the fact it's purely AI pretty obvious.

[Cyclotron]

I know Linux is supposed to be the king for CLI vs. Windows but man, I just remembered a pet peev.

When I learned Linux and UNIX ifconfig was the tool for network interface management. It worked on all *NIX. There were variances but the command was there. Now Net-Tools is depricated and I have to remind myself to use the iproute2 tool set.

Windows came out with "ipconfig" in Windows NT 3.51 and its worked in every command window since. By my math, 32 years you could type "ipconfig /all" and it would spit out the network interface config.

I just spun up a linux container which  and typed ifconfig -a like I know what I'm doing....  Then cursed it and typed "ip address"

[Someone]

Once upon a time there was an int.  He could be signed and unsigned and he was exactly 8 bits in length.

Then one day he woke up and was 16bit long and promptly crashed the bank systems.

Code rots.

Actually that was char rather than int, but int has its own problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_(computer_science)

In C, it is denoted by int and required to be at least 16 bits. Windows and Unix systems have 32-bit ints on both 32-bit and 64-bit architectures.