Hacker News Reader

Look at it this way: whenever you are running a program you didn't write yourself, you're running a bunch of commands you never checked. This is no different to, say, downloading a precompiled executable and running it, with all the same problems and tradeoffs.

It is different. While it is obviously true that I haven't checked all of the binaries I'm running, I at least can, through the various signatures involved, rely on the fact that it was created by a particular individual or group, whom I may trust.

Would you really assign the same level of trust to, eg, a sudo(8) binary downloaded somewhere of the internet as you would to the one provided by your distribution?

There are various levels of trust, of course. The packages in Debian or RedHat are more trustworthy (there is a process) than those in NPM or Maven (free-for-all, even if you have some assurance that the package you're downloading is the very same the developer uploaded).

But installing a random NPM package is no more dangerous than curl-piping a script from Github to bash over HTTPS (without -k). You're still sure that what you're downloading and running is what whoever is in control of that repo intended.

What IS more dangerous is training a generation of developers to solve problems by quickly copy-pasting random strangers' magic incantations from random blogs or Stackoverflow into their terminals. You could probably infect a large number of machines very quickly by stalking certain categories on Stackoverflow for "noob" questions and giving a good answer in the form of a GitHub gist curl-pipe to sudo that fixes the problem, but that also discreetly backdoors the target.

That's not the comparison being made. It's between piping curl to bash, or just downloading a script and running it with sudo, without inspecting.

Yes, you "could inspect". But this is about the instructions. And instructions to pipe curl to bash are no more or less harmful than instructions to download a binary from a "random" server and run it verbatim.

"Piping curl to bash" is a red herring. It's "running unverified code" that's the problem. Piping curl to bash just makes it viscerally obvious how dangerous that is.

People are lazy, developers are people, most developers are not interested in process of system maintenance, so if something could be done fast and easy, they could care less about it. My colleague uses Windows 8 preinstalled on his laptop 5 years ago, it's slow as hell and ridden with all kinds of toolbars, but he doesn't want to make an effort of full reinstall. He would happily pipe curl to bash, actually I'm not even sure if he understands what curl or bash is, he knows some Java and JavaScript and that's enough to be paid.

I like tinkering with system, I reinstalled my home server may be 20 times, I'm always reinstalling macos from scratch when new version released, but honestly it's not very productive time spent, so I understand people who just want to get things done.

I think it's failure of current operating systems: installing software is still too hard and tedious. Opening terminal and copy-pasting strings is not a trivial activity. If one could install npm by pushing button in their website, they would do that instead.

This oh so much include the upsurge in containerization and the quagmire that is Linux distro package dependencies.

First of all, containerization allows for static linking via other means. Meaning that as the container holds everything a program needs to run in exactly the right versions, it produce what is practically the same as a static binary with the linked libs compiled in.

Similarly, package dependencies are a quagmire because package A may want lib B, while C wants B+1. And B+1 introduce some subtle (or overt) change that makes it unsuitable for A. This then result in a game of telephone with package and file names to try to get both B and B+1 to exist on a system at the same time. But there are no real conversion for how to settle these conflicts so each distro have their own rules and procedures.

But really the distros are trying to make the best of a bad situation brought on by lib and program developer laziness. Laziness whereby they do not properly check breakages before shipping, or simply grab the latest and shiniest that gets their job done rather than track down the lowest common denominator that is suitable.

Containers are more than static linking. You can have multiple binaries, which is not really possible with static linking.

Your A and C package example are actually an argument for containers.

It may be used, by developers, as an argument for containers. But that is just the same old lazy devs being their same old lazy self. Containers are not fixing the underlying problem.

I like very much this formalism to installation procedure description. Being curious and informed about the risks, I will not do a copy paste of curl ... | sudo .... I will do a curl to a temporary file, edit the file and if there is nothing fishy, I will copy the commands (from the file, not a browser) to a terminal.

If the content of the file is a very messy (or too long) script, I consider that the software will also be messy and does not deserve my time.

This formalism flatter my ego, proves transparency and makes me spare time. Full benefit. It is dangerous for noob, but is also a good opportunity to educate them.

> But then again some projects wouldn't be that popular if they were hard to install.

Slackware was my first distro back in 2007 and I still wish it had at the very least a decent installer and package manager, it is so well built but upgrading, and installing is just not as trivial when compared to Debian. I guess openSUSE (afaik) is the only remnant of Slackware that's usable - really loved openSUSE but just like every other distro in the world I have to dance to get my Wi-Fi working properly.

I've wasted several days trying to get programs I write turned into debs and rpms, I gave up. It's a single executable you can download and put wherever you like, or download the source and './configure.py; make'.

Also, I release new versions regularly, so now being in the official repositories is no good as they will get out of date, I have to run my own repositories, for several versions of ubuntu and redhat. No chance.

I have succeeded in turning my programs into DEBs and RPMs that also properly comply with all the distribution packaging guidelines, but it took me two months. I am now onboarding two other developers but they are struggling with making changes to DEBs and RPMs. All because of the complexity, archaic toolchain and poor documentation.

The only reason why we made DEBs and RPMs was to please users, but it's not an experience I want to recommend anyone.

did fpm not work for you?

> I've wasted several days trying to get programs I write turned into debs and rpms, I gave up.

The formats themselves are pretty easy to create; for a .deb you just:

- Make the folder hierarchy you want to include, e.g. things like `myBuildFolder/usr/bin/myProgram`

- Make a `myBuildFolder/DEBIAN/debian-binary` file containing `2.0`

- Make a `myBuildFolder/DEBIAN/control` file which contains e.g. the name of the package and its dependencies

- Run `dpkg-deb --build myBuildFolder`

This gives a .deb package which will be tracked by dpkg/apt, allowing clean removals/upgrades/etc. unlike `sudo make install` which will spray cruft all over the system. When I used Debian, I would install all software like this.

I've never made a .deb that's compliant with Debian's packaging policies though, since that does take a lot of effort.

Is checkinstall still available? I had great success with it.