Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 19:09 UTC, submitted by Adam S
Linspire "Linspire announced plans to standardize software installation across Linux distributions by expanding its popular CNR digital download and software management service to support several of the most popular desktop Linux distributions in 2007. Previously available only for Linspire and Freespire desktop Linux users, the CNR Service will begin providing users of other desktop Linux distributions a free and easy way to access over 20000 desktop Linux products, packages and libraries."
Order by: Score:
2fargone
Member since:
2006-02-20

If they want a standard distro, which isn't going to happen, the next best thing is to have those distros use your repository. The Linux Foundation should provide a standard repository, that way, it won't matter what distro is used, so long as it uses the repository for updating and installing new software. Kinda like Debian and it's forks.

Reply Score: 4

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

This is not the Linux Foundation's purpose. There currently isn't any "governing" body with a mandate to centralize package management across Linux distribution. At best there's the OSDL, which is a technical body with no service mission.

But if one were to exist, they would object to the use of a proprietary packaging technology for such a purpose. By definition, proprietary solutions are suitable for some--but not all--of the OSS community. Further, we cannot accept a situation where a commercial entity controls the central software distribution service using proprietary software (not forkable by the community). What works in our best interests today may not tomorrow, so it is necessary for us to control our own destiny.

Note that the CNR client plugin is OSS, but the server is not.

It bothers me that the new-school Linux corporations do such nice things using free software within their own distribution projects, yet they insist on reaching out of the community at-large with proprietary software. The otherwise OSS-friendly Canonical attempts to unite issue tracking using the proprietary Launchpad, and Linspire wants us to use their proprietary CNR to unite package management. If you want to lock-in your corporate clients or your paid subscribers, go ahead. But don't handcuff the community with your proprietary development and distribution tools.

Edited 2007-01-23 20:13

Reply Score: 5

raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

Honest question: exactly how can they be handcuffed?

I mean, they can become dependent upon it, sure. But that doesn't mean that the other distros will be debilitated from forming their own free alternatives, does it?

Of course, that latter part depends upon if those other distros can make their alternatives just as viable as the currently-popular proprietary solutions. Or if those other distros (Debian) are more likely to do without such solutions (free or non-free), as they've done for the majority of their histories.

If CNR's server is or proves to be a handcuff - legal or pragmatic - to those other distros, then the distros (SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu) and their maintainers should be blamed - slammed, in fact - for willfully putting those fetters on their own wrists, not Linspire.

Edited 2007-01-23 21:11

Reply Score: 2

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

In theory, distributors could revert to a free system if the proprietary arrangement becomes untenable. But in practice, package repositories quickly rust over once they become unmaintained, and getting them back up to date (i.e. no packaging regressions relative to the proprietary system) is a huge challenge.

For example, when BitKeeper became unusable for the Linux kernel project, a considerable amount of work had to be done to get everyone's bk trees converted to git trees. With a package repository migration it would be significantly worse, not only because of the sheer size of a package repository (which dwarfs the number of upstream kernel branches), but because of the package compatibility and dependency issues that aren't applicable to the kernel.

You're absolutely right that it would be the victim distributor's own fault for adopting CNR, not Linspire's. But that doesn't make this strategic initiative any more tolerable. Free software projects are not a viable market for proprietary development or project management tools. The spirit of free software mandates that the tools needed to participate are likewise free. There would be no free software if GCC was proprietary.

Nothing so central to the operation of the free software community as the very means of software distribution can be left vulnerable to the realities of the business world. Proprietary software can be bought and sold right out from under us. Introducing Microsoft Click-n-Run, for example. Not convinced? Just how far from bankruptcy and asset liquidation could Linspire be? I doubt they've had a single profitable quarter (note they are a private corporation so no one outside the company knows for sure).

Reply Score: 2

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

But click and run doesn't change the package manager or repositories that come by default with your system, so CNR goes away you go back to what you had, no harm no foul.

On top of that its supposed to go Open Source when this new version comes out.

From the CNR site FAQ:

"Is the code for the CNR Plugin open source?

Yes. We encourage you to use this code, and the published CNR web services, to enhance the application, or even write your own from the ground up. We hope to see dozens of variations on the CNR Plugin as users get creative with the CNR Service."

People just want to have something to gripe about. It's good and it's not proprietary! Only thing that will keep people using the standard CNR service is the backend which is 100's of servers and lots of bandwidth.

Reply Score: 1

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

I made sure to mention that the CNR client plugin is OSS, but the server is not. I knew someone would bring that up if I didn't. So I tried to spell it out. I guess you just didn't read the one sentence I purposefully set off from the rest as its own paragraph.

Let me say it again... the server part of CNR is NOT OSS. It doesn't really matter if the client is OSS. There are many situations where we have to connect to proprietary services to get on with our lives, and it doesn't matter one lick if the client we use to connect to it is free software. It still sucks. If anything, I'd rather use a fancy proprietary client to connect to a free service than the other way around.

Reply Score: 3

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

Since the Client is OSS, someone could just as easy create a backend for a modified version of the client.

And as I said, as it does not actually change your OS in anyway you can always go back to what you had. It's not like they are taking over all OSS software.

Me, I am more like Linus, you have to have something to make money, if you never make money then people will get tired of doing the work. Not every project has a billionare owner like Ubuntu, who can spend lots of his own money.

Sometimes you have to give a little to get a lot. I don't mind allowing Linspire to make money providing me with a service that makes it easy for me to admin my computer.

Sorry but I would rather have a proprietary system that works then a OSS one that doesn't.

Reply Score: 2

ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

Yes but should one pay for something the result of a bad design? of course, one could look at the diversity and call it a feature but I think from the POV of commercial developers for a desktop OS, linux is out of control.

It's almost like praising H&R Block instead of going after the tax code.

Reply Score: 1

ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

if there was a standard unified linux platform, there would be no need and no room for these closed source gimmicks.

The Linux foundation will just be a collection of competing groups that will never really change the situation and do what needs to be done to make linux competitive against Windows.

they have to think: what will it take to get more developers to come to the platform?

Reply Score: 1

probably good enough for now
by ari-free on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 19:37 UTC
ari-free
Member since:
2007-01-22

this looks much better than the package manager (at least the idea...haven't actually tried this, sorry) but it still looks like a centralized system -you need to use their server. Most commercial developers would like to host their software on the server of their choice.

Reply Score: 1

Yeah, sure
by prymitive on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 19:49 UTC
prymitive
Member since:
2006-11-20

like Red Hat or Debian standarized package instalation by enabling to install rpm or apt on other distros.

Edited 2007-01-23 19:49

Reply Score: 3

Good idea, let's wait for the execution
by B. Janssen on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 19:53 UTC
B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

This *is* a good idea. Let's just hope the execution will be better than the mockups suggest. Fortunatly they seem to plan and be content with importing the distributions' own packages instead of rolling their own. This way i would have a one-stop point of information and still get my distributions version of the package, so that i can report bugs to the right maintainer.

So, let's see...

Reply Score: 4

OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

This is a step towards the right direction but I still believe that PC-BSD's PBI system is the best way to go. It doesn't require a server. You just download the file from any location you want and install. Pretty much like MS's .MSI insttaller.

Reply Score: 5

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

You just download the file from any location you want

dpkg, portage, etc. all work with downloaded packages, portage more so (in that it just needs the source, not a packaged version of it)

Reply Score: 3

pecisk Member since:
2005-10-20

Autopackage anyone? Why again create additional distribution system? Autopackage is around for enough time to be taken seriously.

Reply Score: 1

nice
by poundsmack on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 20:03 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

i wish them luck. their Click and Run technology is nice.

Reply Score: 2

silly
by alucinor on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 20:40 UTC
alucinor
Member since:
2006-01-06

all this does is standardize an alternative interface to the repos (so that if a user chooses, he can use CNR no matter what "major" distro he is using). but the majority of ubuntu/fedora/debian users are going to continue using whatever tools they were previously.

it just looks like CNR is mirroring fedora/debian/ubuntu repos with a daily synch. nothing too special. i'm sure it took plenty of hard work to implement, but it's not a breakthrough by any means.

this does nothing for helping 3rd parties make universal binaries for linux. that's still a ways off.

it is interesting to note how many server-side closed source services are popping up related to linux distros: launchpad, CNR, RHN, etc. i guess this goes to show that a little closed source at a particular point in the software/service stack can go a long ways towards creating a competitive advantage. i would say there should be seen nothing immoral about this use of closed source -- it is when closed source is used to create a "gate" or "tollbooth" that brings no value to the enduser other than the ability to access the strategically guarded components (such as Windows OS in relation to Windows apps).

Edited 2007-01-23 20:55

Reply Score: 4

RE: silly
by Windows Sucks on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 20:59 UTC in reply to "silly"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

This is supposed to be Open Sourced when the multi OS version and new Freespire version come out.

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS8523030175.html

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: silly
by egon_spengler on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE: silly"
egon_spengler Member since:
2005-11-20

And has already been pointed out, the CLIENT is the part being thrown open.

Reply Score: 1

Click and run has the advantage of visuals.
by gfacer on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 20:54 UTC
gfacer
Member since:
2005-11-10

This IS a good idea, if only that it allows new users to see a write-up and screen shots of programs they might want to use.

That is the real benefit of the windows model, you can stumble on some shareware / demo /whatever, usually with screenshots, and download it.

Going to synaptic to download wouldn't be that much harder, but JUST looking on synaptic isn't that intuitive. Heck, sometimes looking online at the project page isn't that informative.

My 2 bits.

Reply Score: 2

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

To me the best part and the part that you don't have in Yum, Apt or any of the other tools is for them to keep a history of all the software you have ever installed.

I HATE installing Linux then having to do that dance and search to get all the things I had installed or have installed on my current machine to make it run as sweet.

In CNR I just go to my list, select all and say "install" And that is that.

Can't do that with any of the other installers out there. People brag about the PBI file crap for PC-BSD. Man to install the amount of applications in a new install that I can install in 15 minutes using CNR would take an hour and a half. Got to download them on at a time, got to find what you need one by one, then install them one at a time by hand! Talk about going back to the Windows dark ages.

Reply Score: 1

spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

no kidding

Reply Score: 1

antik Member since:
2006-05-19

People brag about the PBI file crap for PC-BSD. Man to install the amount of applications in a new install that I can install in 15 minutes using CNR would take an hour and a half.

PC-BSD 1.3 installation time on descent computer ten (10) minutes. Installing ten (10) applications with script three (3) minutes:

#!/bin/sh
# This is batch script for installing
# multiple PBIs in text mode, great for
# large office administrators.
#
/bin/sh OpenOffice.org2.1-PV1.1.pbi -text
/bin/sh Java-JRE1.5.0.07-PV01.pbi -text
/bin/sh K3b0.12.15-PV01.pbi -text
/bin/sh EssentialCodecs1.0-PV1.1.pbi -text
/bin/sh Amarok1.4.4-PV.pbi -text
/bin/sh Qemu-0.8.2-PV-KQ130P9a-V1.2.pbi-text
/bin/sh Win4BSD1.1-63918-PV01.pbi -text
/bin/sh Firefox2.0-PV1.4.pbi -text
/bin/sh PAMP5.0-PV01.pbi -text
/bin/sh SoftMakerOffice2006-PV1.0.pbi -text
# done.

YMMV.

Reply Score: 1

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

LOL! I could do that with CNR or 10 computers in 10 minutes. And I could have my 60 year old mother do it for me if I need to take a nap.

On top of that you didn't include the time it takes to download the apps, and also the changes you may need to make in the script when and if version numbers change etc.

And damn, what if your machine crashes. Now you may have to redownload everything and maybe even have to redo the script. my momma can't do that. LOL!

Sorry but CNR kills that on its worse day!

Reply Score: 1

yak8998 Member since:
2006-07-28

and you don't have to download them with CNR? Does it have some sort of magical teleportation device that zips them immediately to your hard drive? And don't tell me they come with the install, any distro can do that.

Also, Arch's pacman seems to do pretty much everything being griped about, minus visuals/writeups (install histories, dep resolves (forward and back; install/uninstall). Can download the "package" from anywhere, etc

Reply Score: 2

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

? Come on Pacman is not even close to CNR.

And yes you have to download and install applications. The difference is once I install once I don't ever have to go back and look for the applicaiton again. Not only is it in my history but it updates in the history.

With exes, PBI's etc you have to find each application, download and install them one by one (Or use a script you have to make by hand)

CNR, I just log into my account, select all and say install. It all happens in the background (Which I can watch if I want to in the CNR client) And when it's done it pops me up a message and I am on my way. (Same as the update manager in Ubuntu)

Its fast and reliable.

Reply Score: 1

antik Member since:
2006-05-19

CNR, I just log into my account, select all and say install. It all happens in the background (Which I can watch if I want to in the CNR client) And when it's done it pops me up a message and I am on my way. (Same as the update manager in Ubuntu)

Interesting, how CNR manage to solve different, conflicting library problems- PBIs come with self contained dependencies. You can install two different versions of applications and use them simultaneously even on much newer operating system release (I can install OpenOffice.org 2.0.3 to PC-BSD 1.0 and even on 1.3- current PBI version of OO.o is 2.1).

Uhh, almost forgot- PBI is not just about installing software- PBI can install driver for your latest nVidia card, driver for your NIC, you can even install Windows drivers with PBI (NDISulator aka project evil). Install operating system patches and make massive configuration changes- this is universal tool and usage is unlimited. You can make PBIs itself with PBI Creator.

And PBI source code is free- with BSD License you can use it as you wish.

Edited 2007-01-24 10:05

Reply Score: 0

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

I am sure my mom wants or needs to run 2 versions of the same thing. Handy for some people, will never get used by most.

Installing drivers is pretty cool. Not too interested in installing Windows drivers but I can see where that can come in handy.

Most of those things that you mention you can do with PBI are things that advanced users would do and not basic users. CNR is geared to basic users.

Reply Score: 2

yak8998 Member since:
2006-07-28

Disclaimer: Haven't used CNR before.

Pacman sounds like it does the same thing. Get a front end for it and you can do it the GUI as well.

Reply Score: 1

yak8998 Member since:
2006-07-28

hmmm edit disappeared. weird.

you still didn't explain "On top of that you didn't include the time it takes to download the apps".

CNR still has to download. Thats not really a valid argument...

Reply Score: 1

v Great!
by Sodki on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:25 UTC
RE: Great!
by raynevandunem on Wed 24th Jan 2007 07:37 UTC in reply to "Great!"
raynevandunem Member since:
2006-11-24

You mean Linspire or CNR?

Linspire, sure. CNR, only for APT and RPM-based distros, as far as I can surmise from the press release.

Reply Score: 1

Not expecting but good
by microFawad on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 21:31 UTC
microFawad
Member since:
2005-12-09

I wasn't expecting such step from Linspire.
This is good thing for opening there CNR service for other distros...

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
One of the biggest complaints I hear from MS Windows and Mac users about Linux, is that there are too many distributions, each with their own installation system.

...

When we started Linspire, we knew that we'd need to overcome this complexity. This led to Linspire's CNR ("Click 'N Run") technology.
"""

Or more succinctly, "We decided that the biggest problem with Linux was package manager proliferation and so we created a package manager of our own".

Brilliant thinking, Mr. Carmony.

I'm not really a Linspire detractor. I'm glad there is someone out there who recognizes that some people need easy access to proprietary drivers.

But I hardly see Linspire as being the Knight in shining armor, here.

Especially considering the proprietary nature of the CNR server software.

Reply Score: 5

Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought they were planing to open source it?

Reply Score: 1

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

It's careful wording on Linspire's part. Apparently the OSS client plugin is so free that it will allow the community to do "creative" things with the closed CNR service. They encourage this creativity, too.

Reply Score: 3

Easy and Legal
by bsharitt on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 22:23 UTC
bsharitt
Member since:
2005-07-07

The thing I really like about this is that it will provide an easy and legal way to install proprietary software, particulary multimedia codecs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Easy and Legal
by egon_spengler on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:37 UTC in reply to "Easy and Legal"
egon_spengler Member since:
2005-11-20

Ever heard of Fluendo? www.fluendo.com provides mp3 codec, mpeg codec packs, wm codec packs and DOESN'T end up being yet another layer atop your own distro's package manager.

Reply Score: 1

Technical details anyone?
by Luis on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:08 UTC
Luis
Member since:
2006-04-28

I wonder how this works. Say I want to install QuodLibet (audio player) on a Fedora box. Say I'm running KDE, so lots of dependencies will be needed (QuodLibet is a Gnome/Gtk app, written in Python). So how will it work? Will it pull all dependencies from Fedora's own repositories? If so, what if some dependencies are missing? (gstreamer-plugins-ugly, for example). Will those dependencies be installed in the standard way so that when I update my system they will get updated too? And what if a package depends on a newer version than the one in Fedora's repository?

Or on the other hand, will each app come with all dependencies included as in the PBI packages? And will they get installed somewhere like in /opt/appname and be completely aliens in the system?

I don't really like any of both options, though the second one at least would work.

Don't Debian and Ubuntu have a tool called Gdebi that is basically a Click and Run tool? You click on a .deb package (online or locally) and it opens a graphical tool that will install the package with all dependencies from its own repositories. It looks more consistent to me. And all that is needed is that Debian or Ubuntu would create a nice website with all the applications available for install with their link to the repo. With info, nice icons, screenshots, etc...

Reply Score: 2

Stupid idea:
by deb2006 on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 23:26 UTC
deb2006
Member since:
2006-06-26

Apart from maybe Ubuntu and SUSE I neither see Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, Arch etc. p.p. using this. They all have their package systems and they seem to work well. Being a Debian user I can say this much: There has to be something really, really great invented before I trade apt for it. And I certainly won't use CNR ...

Reply Score: 3

Good
by Angel Blue01 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 00:22 UTC
Angel Blue01
Member since:
2006-11-01

This will help me recommend Linux to people who might not want Linspire and help me with SUSE.

Reply Score: 1

This is good for Linux
by JPisini on Wed 24th Jan 2007 02:55 UTC
JPisini
Member since:
2006-01-24

Linspire's CNR is a great way to install software. If it works as well on other distros it will be a boon to all of Linux.

Reply Score: 2

The headline reads like an advert
by twenex on Wed 24th Jan 2007 06:43 UTC
twenex
Member since:
2006-04-21

Just because they are porting XYZ to every Linux distribution under the sun doesn't mean people are going to use it.

Reply Score: 3

Good but not so good
by rockett15 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:42 UTC
rockett15
Member since:
2006-06-08

While this may be a step in making the installing of software on Linux standardized across Linux distributions, it still relies on a central repo.

If Linux ever expects to get support from lots of 3rd party application developers, there needs to be a non-repository based package installation system that is compatible on all distributions.

You need to be able to go to a website and download a file that you can double click on and it starts installing (irrelevant of distribution). Major software companies don't want to host their software on repos, they want it on their website.

Reply Score: 1

The problems with PBI
by unclefester on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:43 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Last week I installed PCBSD. Installation is effortless and the system is very stable and polished. However the PBI system is practically useless. There are only a few dozen PBIs available many of which are fairly dated. This compares with the 16,000+ files in the ports collection. However installing from source is painfully slow and very few binaries exist.

It would probably require at least 10 full time developers to compile and maintain an up to date PBI collection. Unscripted PBI istallation is very slow and cumbersome as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The problems with PBI
by rockett15 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:49 UTC in reply to "The problems with PBI"
rockett15 Member since:
2006-06-08

And this is exactly why we need to standardize on a self installing package type such as PBI. If every distribution used PBI, then it would be as simple as going to http://www.applicationurl.com/, selecting Linux as your format and a PBI downloads. Double click, install.

Without this level of standardization, there is too much effort needed to support Linux as you have to make a package that works on: Ubuntu, Debian, Mandriva, SuSE, Gentoo, ..., ....

Reply Score: 3

Osnewsadvertisment
by pecisk on Wed 24th Jan 2007 13:54 UTC
pecisk
Member since:
2005-10-20

For Christ sakes, can we stop to beat dead horse already?

Another super duper package retrieval system? What is wrong with yum and apt-get? Nothing? What is wrong with debian with correct depencies set? Nothing!

Please, stop advertise Freespire/Linspire stuff. I don't need any of Freespire/Linspire/Lindows stuff, it looks childish and I won't touch that distro or anything connected, period.

And no, for lot of users who uses Ubuntu/Fedora everyday, GETTING applications is less of problem. Most problem is small gliches and workarounds for them. Let's work on that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Osnewsadvertisment
by Windows Sucks on Wed 24th Jan 2007 16:43 UTC in reply to "Osnewsadvertisment"
Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

For Christ sakes, stop whining! If you don't like it or want to use it then dont.

Goodness.

I happen to think it's great for non technical Linux users. Non tech people can't figure out Apt, Yum and the other 50 package managers out there that are confusing as hell.

So let us people who want to use it, use it. And you stick with what you have and let bigons be bigons!

Reply Score: 3

The core problem
by Rufus on Wed 24th Jan 2007 14:43 UTC
Rufus
Member since:
2007-01-10

The core problem from my point of view is that is doesn't solve the lack of participation from application developers.

Linspire's Click'n'Run system is just another centralized package system that has the same problems as every centralized package system, be this APT, YUM, or whatever: If no-one packages the application first, the user is on his own!

This is the problem of every centralized system: the user needs a third-party to do the work. A decentralized system such as PBI or Autopackage, however, makes it possible that application developers provide a package as soon as the publish a new version.

Central repository always lack behind. And the effects are obvious: Linux makes less fun. Exploring and testing new applications (and versions) is a central part of the fun of every operating system. With Linux, however, that's just a ongoing source of frustration.

This is also a disadvantage for the projects.

Imaging Firefox had set up a similar repository system for their Windows users, telling everybody: "If you use Windows 95, then use repository 1; if you use Windows 2000, then use repository 2 which is empty right now because noone filled it, please use the source code, and if you use Windows XP, please install from here but install dependencies A, B, and C, first, because we haven't set up a repository yet." This is confusing. It makes no fun.

Can you imaging that Firefox would have reached its high downloads numbers with such a confusing and boring system? And without its download numbers, would it have had such an impact? Probably not.

On the other hand, when Firefox published version 2 (IIRC) two major German PC journals included Firefox' installer package in their front cover CDs. This distributed Firefox to nearly a million people including a cover story about the new functions and benefits.

This is how one makes successful open source software. This is why a decentralized system make sense.

There's no way around it IMHO: Linux needs a decentralized standard to install applications if it wants to be more successful on the desktop. This may be PBI, this may be Autopackage, or this may be the new system developed by the Linux foundation.

But want it needs more than a technical solution is the understanding of the application developers that they need to provide such an installer package on the their project's homepage.

Reply Score: 1

standardized installs...
by tspears on Wed 24th Jan 2007 14:46 UTC
tspears
Member since:
2006-05-22

Doesn't anyone compile from source anymore???

Reply Score: 2

RE: standardized installs...
by egon_spengler on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:50 UTC in reply to "standardized installs..."
egon_spengler Member since:
2005-11-20

I have done so on several occasions. However, you must remember that Ubuntu, Lindows, and Xandros have created a great influx of new users, who seem bent upon IMMEDIATE gratification "just like in Windows," since that is how at least the Lindows people like to paint things. Be required to LEARN something? Heavens forefend. "It isn't like that in Windows." is a common complaint heard across the forums. This is NOT Windows, this is a *nix clone (GNU's Not Unix) running Linus' kernel. How could it BE Windows?

Reply Score: 1

RE: standardized installs...
by yak8998 on Thu 25th Jan 2007 09:52 UTC in reply to "standardized installs..."
yak8998 Member since:
2006-07-28

not too much of a point anymore. Everything is fast enough for desktop use that most people just don't care. I don't think gentoo users have an option though =x

Reply Score: 1

Oh damn, they f*cked it up
by Moochman on Wed 24th Jan 2007 18:34 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

Reading the headline, I got excited. I envisioned a new world of unified Linux package management for the whole range of users, newbies to pros, opening up. Then I read that the server is closed-source.

They could have changed the face of Linux. Instead they will remain in relative obscurity. They missed their chance.

One more great OSS idea f*cked up by incorporating closed source. (*cough* Novell *cough*)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Oh damn, they f*cked it up
by iMoron on Thu 25th Jan 2007 01:44 UTC in reply to "Oh damn, they f*cked it up"
iMoron Member since:
2005-09-30

...mmm

Have anyone of you complaining about the nature of the server been closed wonder why it is like that?

I mean, consider that they will have commercial apps in their servers could be the reason... Though if it where like that they could put all commercial stuff on a close server and open the other so that you feel better.

Besides, they have CnR open, they could open the server that has the free stuff in a few years...

Besides, close server or not, access to free stuff is free and it is up to the user to use their service or not!

Go and help your favorite distro and package manager and ignore this a bit if you dislike it so much... though you could always learn something from their atemp. Just keep an eye on it so you don't make mistakes that they might make, and you should be cool. ;)

Chill...

-iMoron

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh damn, they f*cked it up
by yak8998 on Thu 25th Jan 2007 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh damn, they f*cked it up"
yak8998 Member since:
2006-07-28

They could put security in place to protect the apps. Not a stretch to implement. You can easily secure linux boxes even though its open source.

Reply Score: 1