[CentOS] How to install XFCE on CentOS 8?

Thu Feb 18 17:15:34 UTC 2021
Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com>

On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 12:04, Simon Matter <simon.matter at invoca.ch> wrote:

> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 at 04:47, Simon Matter <simon.matter at invoca.ch>
> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Smooge, you know I feel your pain, but becoming a maintainer in EPEL
> >> has
> >> > a pretty high bar (lots of new tools and methods to work with, amongst
> >> > other things) -- as it SHOULD, given that it's intended as an addon to
> >> > EL and needs to be very tightly controlled.  It's just more difficult
> >> to
> >> > get started these days relative to when anyone could build an rpm as
> >> > long as they had a copy of Maximum RPM and knew how to drive 'rpm -ba'
> >> > .... back when building as root in a non-reproducible buildroot wasn't
> >> a
> >> > cardinal sin.....
> >> >
> >>
> >> I've just started reading https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ and
> >> realized this became a problem which hurts EPEL much more than Fedora.
> >>
> >> IMHO it simply got too difficult to maintain packages for quite a number
> >> of software tools. It explains why there are so many missing, outdated
> >> or
> >> dead packages in Fedora and more so in EPEL.
> >>
> >> What worries me even more is that things have changed to be worse with
> >> every release than becoming better.
> >>
> >>
> > To put it bluntly, is that there are multiple issues going on:
> >
> > 1. We have a large number of people who have gotten used to someone else
> > doing the work for them and not having to care about the software
> > themselves. In doing so they have this idea that building the software is
> > exactly like it was when they got into computers. [* This isn't a new
> > phenomena]
> > 2. Software gets more complicated and more interdependent to do the many
> > things software consumers expect it to accomplish.
> > 3. Software changes more rapidly because more people are able to work on
> > code and people have this odd thing of deciding that whoever wrote the
> > code
> > last was a complete idiot and this new method/language is much better.
> > [The
> > only time it is funny is the once a week where a git blame shows you that
> > the last idiot was you.]
> > 4. With millions of software consumers, there are millions of 'opinions'
> > of
> > what they need and Linux being a system which allows you to shoot your
> > foot
> > in a billion ways tries to accomplish all of them.
> >
> > * When I was getting into software in the 1990's there were a lot of
> > people
> > who had been using Unix systems from the 1970's who found 'modern'
> > software
> > to be too complicated to build and coders were out of their minds for
> > adding in such complexity when no one needed an editor more than ed. At
> > the
> > time I thought they were 'joking' but when I went to work at various
> > places
> > I found they were dead serious. The change is that where in the 1990's
> > there were only hundreds of people like that, now there are maybe a low
> > million.
> >
> > Trying to build large amounts of divergent code and make it stay working
> > is
> > very hard. As much as modules are a bane of my existence, something like
> > them is absolutely necessary for many complicated stacks from desktop
> > software to web applications. Writing basic rpms is even more complicated
> > than in 1999 because there are so many corner cases which have to be
> dealt
> > with. Writing modules is adding more layers of indirection on top of that
> > because it is trying to keep the Rube Goldberg machine of each
> individuals
> > 'choices' going.
> >
> > Frankly unless someone can figure out a way to make the packaging
> > janitorial work sexy enough to have people interested in it.. or people
> > who
> > need this stuff actually pay people to do it.. this is all going to fall
> > apart like all infrastructure which was 'someone else's problem'.
> Well, unfortunately yes, EPEL is on a good way to go where DAG, ATrpms,
> NUX, freshrpms and all the others already are.
Many of those ran out of steam because software got more and more
complicated, and consumers demanded MORE of it but put less into it. "There
is no such thing as a free lunch" but it doesn't seem to stop people
assuming there has to be.

> Ironically, CentOS was the reason for other clones like Scientific Linux
> to vanish, now CentOS Linux vanishes itself. The same goes with EPEL, it

CentOS was not the primary reason Scientific Linux (and some other
rebuilds) vanished, it was the convenient excuse. The staff who were
working on Scientific Linux had continual budget cuts over a decade while
also an increase in what people wanted from it. There were several 'your
team has been told to retire' before they combined with CentOS. It is a
problem that the other past clones ran into and I expect the future ones
will also have to grapple. It takes a lot of resources to build an OS even
if it is recompiling the source code others made available to you. Without
a constant renewal and growth of those resources, the people volunteering
(or even being paid) to do the work run out of steam and the projects
eventually look to combine to get more people.

> was one nail in the coffin of so many third party repositories, now it
> seems to go there as well.
> What is even more sad is the fact that everybody is now waiting for Navy
> Linux, Rocky Linux and AlmaLinux to get their huge work done to produce
> three, technically mostly identical systems. They'll still all lack the
> same thing which is a good package repository for things not found in
> Doesn't it mean burning a huge amount of CPU cycles and storage for little
> additional gain in the end?
> Sadly, that's not how open source works best.
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Stephen J Smoogen.