alt Hacker NewsDid you hire a Linux release engineer? Or was the situation the typical team of devs maining macOS that have never heard the term “Wayland” before plus That One Guy who switched to Ubuntu last year and advocated for it?
There are companies that do this right. But it often requires a hire. Too many companies think they can just yolo it because Linux isn’t a serious OS or whatever and then are surprised when it doesn’t work out well.
Replies
Even for those who do this right, some things change under your feet because OSS maintainers of kernel feature A want to stop supporting V1 of A when V2 has been out for a decade. But the features missing in V2 are supposed to be provided by userspace B - and they are yet to tackle the functionality altogether. So now your app will just have to regress in features. It is very easy to ship OSS code as a maintainer of a project, it is very difficult to keep up with Linux as a developer unless you stick to libc. There is no one source of truth with regards to how things should work, there is no one roadmap, and maintainers care a lot more about complexity than maintaining feature parity of backwards compatibility. I do not blame them, but then it is difficult to target linux. Much easier to support a platform with guarantees and a shared vision. Saying this as someone who has only used Linux at home for 20 years.
> Did you hire a Linux release engineer
That's often a great idea!
But a full time hire? The GP's post implies that wouldn't make business sense for them, as even half a day occasionally on it is too much...
>> So your engineers spend a half day installing that in a VM and debugging it, but the problem is in upstream somewhere. The number of tickets with Linux issues keeps growing and each one is taking more time to debug, all for a number of customers that is so small you can’t justify doing it.
Of course an experienced Linux release engineer can do it faster and more reliably. That's probably the cheaper option. But the business still has to decide their Linux customer or user base is large enough, or strategically worth supporting, to justify the cost however they do it.
For many businesses even fractional Linux support is not justifiable for the small number of Linux users and support requests they're unable to handle. Though I can't imagine that being the case for Anthropic!
(Hint: This is one of the things I consult on, if anyone is looking to pay for quality Linux release engineering and platform testing. I have hundreds of historical and current Linux VMs, multiple architectures old and new (esp. x86, ARM and RISC-V), some of them embedded, fairly deep knowledge of how the kernel and libraries work together, and test harnesses. Also I test some compiled applications for portability across other OSes and architectures, including Windows, MS-DOS, MacOS, BSDs, SunOS, HP-UX, etc. going all the way back to the early Unix lineage.)