Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Jan 2007 12:34 UTC, submitted by editingwhiz
Linspire "Linspire CEO Kevin Carmony says his company is opening up its CNR software download and management service to other Linux distributions because "Linux really needs an easier way to find and install software, regardless of which flavor of Linux you're using." According to Carmony, Linspire has been working on this project more more than a year. To find out more about how this bold new program is going to work - and how it benefits everyone involved - Desktoplinux.com conducted the following short Q&A with Carmony via email."
Order by: Score:
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

My Opinion? Absolutely. This is a major leap ahead for Linux and the community should be very proud and glad. It removes one of the biggest obsticles between Linux and the desktop. The best thing about CNR is that it has a commercial backing and that is a big plus.

I am not sure however which is a better solution: Klik or CNR? There is also Autopacakage which doesn't seem to be too popular.

Edited 2007-01-25 12:51

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

My opinion? Absolutely not. While I'm not one of those fundamentalists who condemns others for installing a closed source NVidia driver, I do draw the line at basing our *infrastructure* on closed source software. Carmony and Co. can and will look out for their own interests.

Linspire will always be "more equal" than the others.

Kevin claims that they are choosing the distros they will support based upon the user base. Now, I'm as critical of presenting distrowatch stats as anyone. But I will point out that they picked numbers 1,2,3,7,16, and 44 as their targets for ongoing support.

Freespire and Linspire (#'s 16 and 44) are *already* being treated as more equal than the others... right from the get go.

Proprietary software is OK by me because I think that we need to draw from all the resources we can. After all, the other side does.

But it is sheer suicide to base our own infrastructure on the closed source CNR server.

And do please note this direct quote from Mr. Carmony:

"We can't have it 100 percent open on the server side, because of the commercial application sales, credit card transactions, etc., but the delivery of FOSS side is quite open and public."

Wow. Open Source is OK for home and hobby use, but for commercial use, doing important things like credit card transactions, it's obvious that closed source must be used. Do we really want this guy controlling our access to software?

Edited 2007-01-25 13:26

Reply Score: 5

rianquinn Member since:
2007-01-25

Linspire (being the first Linux Distro I ever used) is really onto something here. I currently use Ubuntu and although I know about a lot of Open Source software, it took me a long time to get to this point. I started by using CNR and I think its wonderful.

At minimum it gives everyone a central place to post comments and reviews about software. This helps the rest of use sort our the junk.

And I'm sorry, but your paranoid if you can't trust someone who doesn't open source there software completely. As I always say, if you don't like it don't use it and keep quite. I imagine many however will love this new piece of software and I look forward to using it.

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
And I'm sorry, but your [sic] paranoid
"""

No. I've just been around longer.

While I do think that distros like Linspire serve an important purpose, they also have a potential downside.

Some people would never be able to try a Linux distro if it were not for these hand-holding distros that make their hardware work out-of-the-box, even if it takes closed drivers, etc. And it's good that they have Linspire.

However, *you* are an excellent example of the down side of Linspire. You see absolutely nothing wrong with Linux basing its vital infrastructure on code controlled by a single entity with interests of its own.

Kevin Carmony is pitching this thing as a replacement for other package management systems.

If it were just you and yours using this like any other piece of software, I wouldn't give a rat's posterior.

But as infrastructure? No way.

Fortunately, there is actually little to worry about.

This venture is going nowhere. The level of trust that Kevin and Linspire command in the community is nearly zilch. The other distros will never fall for it (not even Ubuntu), and I'm still waiting to hear the *real* reason that Linspire tried to float this.

Reply Score: 4

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Kevin Carmony is pitching this thing as a replacement for other package management systems.

Not really. Read the actual description of the service on the web site: CNR will not work without the distro repositories, and will be compatible with the distro's package managers (as far as I can tell).

From the website:

"The new multi-distribution CNR technology standardizes the installation process for the user without requiring a new or altered packaging system. CNR uses standard .deb and .rpm files, but shields the user from the complexity of these packaging systems. This allows developers to continue using their same packaging methods, and the different distributions can continue with their normal release management practices."

Reply Score: 5

egon_spengler Member since:
2005-11-20

First, no way do I consider this "one of the most significant," but since it is being touted by Carmony, et al., everything they do is tantamount to the Second Coming ("choice removed in The Netherlands" anyone? as an example), the server is closed up tighter than a drum, this is another layer on TOP of your native distro package manager (you run Fedora, you use yum/yumex/pirut; you run Debian, you use apt-get/Synaptic/gDebi). Ubuntu is already a done deal insofar as this CNR boondoggle goes (quite a few of the omigawd-I-r-a-linuxer-now folks are just tickled pink with this, along with the bling being bundled into Feisty). So far, at least, Debian seems to be telling them to pound sand, and FC seems to have some level heads involved as well to overcome the "omigawds".

Reply Score: 1

Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

The infrastructure is based on apt, as far as I can see (though correct me if I'm wrong). The only closed parts are for paying for the stuff you need to pay for (if one can believe what Carmony sais).

Will any distro depend on it? No(except linspire and freespire)
Will it be a nice add-on? Yes

If Linspire is big enough, and capable of selling closed source programs that are normally Windows only, how can this be a downside? If they can show that the linux community is willing to pay for some software and create a viable market for other software companies, how can this be a badd idea, instead of having to search the complete internet for a stupid program, checking lots of reviews and then going to a store where you will only find a windows version?

Reply Score: 1

wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

What is the big improvement over apt anyway? The ability to rate software and pay for it? I don't see anything that can't be done with apt in Ubuntu or Debian.

And another reason why using CNR would be bad: single point of failure.

Reply Score: 1

Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

You forget that by supporting debian they get all the other debian-compatible derived distros and by supporting Ubuntu they get Mepis (nr 4 on distrowatch, Mepis uses the Ubuntu repos) as well.

It's quite logical that they support freespire and linspire since that is their own distribution, making it first citisens is also logical since it's the prefered installation method for these two distros, while it's just an add-on for the others.
The good thing about CNR is that it is a perfect add-on for commercial software, one place to get the programs you need. Since the client is opensource, it might become integrated in for example add/remove programs from (k)(x)Ubuntu...

Reply Score: 3

dukeinlondon Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think these concerns are valid. What the community of distros should have done is come up with a common solution.

Now if this one gathers momentum, then the only thing that the FOSS community needs to do is implement the open API of the CNR servers to unlock the distribution of FOSS packages and benefit from the open source plugins. But why did they not do anything like that till now ?

Reply Score: 1

archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

But it is sheer suicide to base our own infrastructure on the closed source CNR server.

To be fair, this is neither supposed to be a replacement for current software management, nor is it intendent to become the base of the software distribution/installation infrastructure. CNR is an *alternative* to the distros' package managers, to be used alongside them. It only aims at helping newbies find and install software, but as far as I know it still uses the distro's repositories (or at least mirrors them) and installed programs are part of the apt/rpm databases.

So, this is just another example of choice within the FOSS world. I might not use it, but I wish them luck.

Reply Score: 3

Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

So who would you trust? Bombastic baffoon Balmer and Bill the racketeer Gates? Not me. Someone HAD to do this. No other company stepped up to make it easy for --anyone-- with almost any distro to easily find and download apps. I'm not talking geeks here. I'm talking about mom and pop and non techie brother and sister. Life is MUCH easier for them with something like CNR.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""No other company stepped up to make it easy for --anyone-- with almost any distro to easily find and download apps."""

Wait a minute. I distinctly remember seeing an "install new software" (or equivalent) entry in the start menu of pretty much every distro I have looked at lately.

Are you seriously suggesting that users of Fedora, OpenSuse, Debian, and Ubuntu are not able to install software?

Well, if I were posting 5 minutes ago I would have thought the idea preposterous.

Posting now, I'd have to say you may be right. I just got an email from one of my clients. He controls a multi-million dollar company. He said that his mouse is not working on his graphical screen. But it's OK on his "desktop". He wanted to know what to do.

I reset gpm and now everything is fine. (Their POS and accounting apps are curses based and they prefer text consoles for that.)

God save us from incredibly stupid people in positions of power.

Yeah, I know. I usually defend people who don't happen to have CS degrees.

But when I've done everything that I can to educate them at least on the basics... for 15 years... and they still don't understand the difference between text and graphical... and CC the message to my boss to ensure that I react quickly... and make 5 times more than I do?

Well... sincere apologies for venting so.

Anyone have a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" they'd be willing to loan me?

Ayn Rand is lookin' pretty good, right now. ;-)

Really. Sorry for the venting.

I'll be OK in a while.


-Steve Bergman

Edited 2007-01-25 15:54

Reply Score: 4

egon_spengler Member since:
2005-11-20

Relax, Mr. Rearden. Things can only get worse (Ubuntu IS getting this boondoggle, too.)

Reply Score: 1

ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

I think you have a point. To users, CNR could be like the difference between linux with x windows and linux with just a terminal command prompt. Or linux with kde/gnome vs linux with just X. Why would they want the old linux experience?

I'm not surprised that people are finding loopholes in the linux/gpl equation

Reply Score: 1

happycamper Member since:
2006-01-01

Come on, what harm can this do? don't make a big fuss over nothing. Linux is barely surviving in the desktop market. if Carmony thinks CNR can make a difference and help linux succeed in the desktop, great, I applaud his ideas.

Reply Score: 2

Excellent news !
by dukeinlondon on Thu 25th Jan 2007 13:44 UTC
dukeinlondon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Of course Linspire is in it for the commercial potential but it where are the various open source distro projects on this ? They've been waisting a lot of energy by packaging way too much stuff that is really not a core part of the OS.

At worst, Linspire CNR will be a useful addition to the set of tools for software installs and at best, the openSuse, Ubuntu and other Fedora will finally get there act together, start a download.com style software portal that brings them advertising revenue and makes their user's life a whole lot easier whilst providing a nice billboard for all these application's projects out there that are actually providing functionalities to users...

Reply Score: 1

Profits
by xultz on Thu 25th Jan 2007 14:52 UTC
xultz
Member since:
2006-05-09

Linspire is a Free Software based, but they get profits by selling commercial softwares, as it says in answer #1.
So, that will not impulse the adoption of free software, because if people do prefer free (libre) software instead of commercial, CNR dies.
What does that mean? They still dont know how to make money with free software, or its not possible to make money with free software?

Reply Score: 1

Debian and CNR
by rabyte on Thu 25th Jan 2007 15:31 UTC
rabyte
Member since:
2005-06-29

Don't mean to flame here, but from what I've gathered, CNR, as nice as it is, is built on the Debian package format, which IMHO is complicated. What GNU/Linux needs is a standardized, easy to use package format, and - this is _very_ important - one that it's easy to build packages for. As long as this goal isn't accomplished, Linux will remain GeekOS. No matter how many .deb frontends are written, if the core, i.e. the format itself remains that complex, not much has changed actually.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Debian and CNR
by Terracotta on Thu 25th Jan 2007 16:40 UTC in reply to "Debian and CNR"
Terracotta Member since:
2005-08-15

What does creating packages have to do with selling these packages? Do you really think that MS-installer packages are easier to create (you still need to compile you know)? An easy way of installing packages is way more important than creating packages. (and installing a program from the repositories (synaptic/adept or from CNR), is way easier than installing a windows program (enter enter enter...)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Debian and CNR
by archiesteel on Thu 25th Jan 2007 19:17 UTC in reply to "Debian and CNR"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Don't mean to flame here, but from what I've gathered, CNR, as nice as it is, is built on the Debian package format, which IMHO is complicated. What GNU/Linux needs is a standardized, easy to use package format, and - this is _very_ important - one that it's easy to build packages for. As long as this goal isn't accomplished, Linux will remain GeekOS.

That's absurd. Deb packages are not difficult to build - they are certainly easier to build than trying to package something with InstallShield!

In any case, the complexity of a package has *nothing* to do with adoption of the OS - that's a ludicrous argument. The complexity of an InstallShield package, or a MSI package, are irrelevant to the user experience of installing them. Similarly, the complexity of a debian package is irrelevant as well - what matters is how simple it is to install, update and remove.

It is in fact already simple to do these things using Synaptic, Adept or - even better - the "Add/Remove Program" app in Ubuntu. The CNR effort aims at making this even more user-friendly. The point of all these apps is exactly to hid the underlying complexity.

You should learn a bit more about these isues before commenting on them...

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Debian and CNR
by rabyte on Thu 25th Jan 2007 22:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Debian and CNR"
rabyte Member since:
2005-06-29

Seems like both of you missed my point.

What does creating packages have to do with selling these packages?
Who's paying for downloading packages!? Anyway, these are indeed two seperate issues.

Do you really think that MS-installer packages are easier to create (you still need to compile you know)?
Did I refer to Windows installers in any way? But I have to agree that the MS way of installing software is simply horrible. And yes, I know what compiling is, it's something I do quite often :-)

An easy way of installing packages is way more important than creating packages.
Both installing and creating is important _to me_. What good is a simple way of installing packages if that application you want isn't in the repos or simply is outdated (read Ubuntu, read Linspire).

(and installing a program from the repositories (synaptic/adept or from CNR), is way easier than installing a windows program (enter enter enter...)
I don't care what MS does, so I'm not interested in these kind of comparisons. I want GNU/Linux to be more than a cheap open-source Windows clone (fortunately, it isn't). Again, I didn't talk about MS...

That's absurd. Deb packages are not difficult to build - they are certainly easier to build than trying to package something with InstallShield!
Read above.

In any case, the complexity of a package has *nothing* to do with adoption of the OS - that's a ludicrous argument. The complexity of an InstallShield package, or a MSI package, are irrelevant to the user experience of installing them. Similarly, the complexity of a debian package is irrelevant as well - what matters is how simple it is to install, update and remove.
I tend to disagree. For example, I'd never use a distro with a packaging system like Debian again. Even though deb packages might be easier to build than other formats, the process still is to complex. But it's true that Joe average doesn't care about building packages. However, read what I wrote in my third answer. Ubuntu's update cycle is ridiculous, and the Linspire repos did have plenty of outdated packages last time I had a look (which wasn't too long ago). Not everybody wants to have a messy /usr/local. Simple pkg creation = more packagers = more, uptodate packages = more attraction = more users. Why do you think so many different package formats are existing if .debs are that great?

It is in fact already simple to do these things using Synaptic, Adept or - even better - the "Add/Remove Program" app in Ubuntu. The CNR effort aims at making this even more user-friendly. The point of all these apps is exactly to hid the underlying complexity.
Hmm, agreed.

You should learn a bit more about these isues before commenting on them...
If you say so :-)

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Debian and CNR
by rabyte on Sun 28th Jan 2007 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Debian and CNR"
rabyte Member since:
2005-06-29

(fortunately, it isn't)

Hm, that should be "it is".

Reply Score: 1

Easier way?
by eelco on Thu 25th Jan 2007 15:48 UTC
eelco
Member since:
2005-07-06

Linux really needs an easier way to find and install software, regardless of which flavor of Linux you're using.

I don't get it. Installing software on Fedora basically means either:
1 - start 'add package'
2 - enter root password
3 - select your package
4 - watch it and its dependencies get installed

or:
1 - download the rpm
2 - enter the root password
3 - watch it and its dependencies get installed

Where's the difficulty in that? It might be a problem that not every package is available as rpm. But will CNR have more packages than Core & Extras?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Easier way?
by silicon on Thu 25th Jan 2007 16:34 UTC in reply to "Easier way?"
silicon Member since:
2005-07-30

Linux really needs an easier way to find and install software, regardless of which flavor of Linux you're using.

You could read this as

Linux really needs an easier way to find and install proprietary software, regardless of which flavor of Linux you're using.

Reply Score: 1

Alternative to CNR?
by da_Chicken on Thu 25th Jan 2007 16:01 UTC
da_Chicken
Member since:
2006-01-01

If you use Debian or *buntu (or any distro that uses Debian's or *buntu's package repositories), you might want to try browsing the available applications at Linux App Finder (http://linuxappfinder.com/ ). Then you can use your favourite APT frontend -- Synaptic, Adept, Aptitude -- to do the actual package installation.

IMHO, that should cover most of the functionality that CNR seems to offer.

Reply Score: 1

Giving everything away...
by Joe User on Thu 25th Jan 2007 16:02 UTC
Joe User
Member since:
2005-06-29

Lindose is giving all their assets away. It seems what they offer have little value. You can get good linux for free with Synaptic, YUMEX, YaST, etc... So basically there's nothing worthy with Linspire... They're giving everything away as their last breath. How can they make money? People expect everything free always in consumer software and internet services...

Reply Score: 1

Carmony, Shuttleworth don't get it
by B. Janssen on Thu 25th Jan 2007 16:38 UTC
B. Janssen
Member since:
2006-10-11

Carmony: A6: The plugins are all open source and the server uses published APIs, so we make it as open as possible. We can't have it 100 percent open on the server side, because of the commercial application sales, credit card transactions, etc., but the delivery of FOSS side is quite open and public.

*head-to-desk* Opening the sourcecode of a secure server platform allows me to extract the data transported by the server? That's hard news for Ebay, Amazon and a host of other online retailers...

Sorry, i don't get it. No, that's wrong. Carmony doesn't get it. Just like Shuttleworth with his unified bug tracker he is on to something good and totally blows it by promoting a closed and proprietary backend. So sad.

Reply Score: 1

CNR vs Synaptic
by zerohalo on Thu 25th Jan 2007 17:25 UTC
zerohalo
Member since:
2005-07-26

How is CNR any "easier" or "better" than Synaptic? I open Synaptic, search for the program I want, click on it, it installs (along with all the dependencies), and that's it.

Yeah, I've use Klik and Autopackage too, but they do essentially the same thing as Synaptic -- the difference being that you're searching for programs on a website and downloading/installing from there, instead of searching for programs in an app on your computer which then downloads and installs the program.

The only advantage I can see is that with a website you don't have to refresh your repository listings. But with Synaptic you can have multiple repositories beyond those offered by your distro, offering more flexibility than a single website would.

Maybe I'm missing something...

Reply Score: 1

RE: CNR vs Synaptic
by DrillSgt on Thu 25th Jan 2007 17:45 UTC in reply to "CNR vs Synaptic"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"How is CNR any "easier" or "better" than Synaptic? I open Synaptic, search for the program I want, click on it, it installs (along with all the dependencies), and that's it. "

CNR is not a package manager, it is a way of distribution. What makes CNR easier is I go to CNR and I can search by categories, without knowing an exact program name. CNR gives descriptions with screen shots of the software, so you can actually find what you are looking for. With Synaptic, I pretty much need to know the exact name of a program I want to install. I can't enter into a search field 'keyboard' in Synaptic and come up with the obscure needed items like keytouch and such. I can with CNR. That is what makes CNR different.

Most of the comments here are people that use linux daily and know the programs they need. CNR is more of a way to find programs without hours of googling and clicking on 100's of different sites just to find the name of what you want.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: CNR vs Synaptic
by deanlinkous on Thu 25th Jan 2007 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE: CNR vs Synaptic"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

CNR is not a package manager, it is a way of distribution. What makes CNR easier is I go to CNR and I can search by categories, without knowing an exact program name. CNR gives descriptions with screen shots of the software, so you can actually find what you are looking for. With Synaptic, I pretty much need to know the exact name of a program I want to install. I can't enter into a search field 'keyboard' in Synaptic and come up with the obscure needed items like keytouch and such. I can with CNR. That is what makes CNR different.

Most of the comments here are people that use linux daily and know the programs they need. CNR is more of a way to find programs without hours of googling and clicking on 100's of different sites just to find the name of what you want.

Been drinking too much CNR kool-aid....
Synaptic has categories. synaptic has search function for name, descriptions, and other criteria.

How are these CNR examples:
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_details.php?product_id=236...
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_details.php?product_id=543...
http://www.linspire.com/lindows_products_details.php?product_id=821...
I missed the screenshots. I did see that they are OLD as in 2004 OLD!!!!

Hope you got a big jug of CNR Kool-Aid....

CNR is a package manager. One that if *spire closed its doors then you would have nothing to CNR... It would be funny if this was a last effort to get some revenue and then go out of business....too funny!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: CNR vs Synaptic
by DrillSgt on Thu 25th Jan 2007 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: CNR vs Synaptic"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Synaptic has categories. synaptic has search function for name, descriptions, and other criteria."

Mine doesn't come up with any screen shots or descriptions except what is in the package. I can't search for keywords in the synaptic I have tried. So, what flavor kool-aid are you drinking? I just did my homework is all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: CNR vs Synaptic
by deanlinkous on Thu 25th Jan 2007 18:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: CNR vs Synaptic"
deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

Mine doesn't come up with any screen shots or descriptions except what is in the package. I can't search for keywords in the synaptic I have tried. So, what flavor kool-aid are you drinking? I just did my homework is all.

No screeshots. Why do we need screenshots. I thought the spire-ites always say "we just want to turn on the computer and work" so why does something need to be pretty? ;)

Yes the description that is in the package. EXACTLY! What is wrong with that. Any ideas where those CNR descriptions come from?

Keyword? What is a description BUT keywords???
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4936/screenshot8hl.png

Edited 2007-01-25 18:52

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: CNR vs Synaptic
by DrillSgt on Thu 25th Jan 2007 18:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CNR vs Synaptic"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"No screeshots. Why do we need screenshots. I thought the spire-ites always say "we just want to turn on the computer and work" so why does something need to be pretty? ;) "

I agree you do have a point there. In a way I am playing devil's advocate here as the person I am thinking about would be the one who doesn't know anything about computers. Those are the people that CNR is aimed towards, not those of us that use Linux of some flavor daily. No, I don't use Linspire or *ubuntu.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: CNR vs Synaptic
by archiesteel on Thu 25th Jan 2007 19:29 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: CNR vs Synaptic"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

No screeshots. Why do we need screenshots. I thought the spire-ites always say "we just want to turn on the computer and work" so why does something need to be pretty?

I myself would not use CNR - in fact, I rarely use Synaptic...command-line apt-get is all I need.

That said, I can certainly appreciate what CNR is trying to do to bring newbies in. It is certainly more newbie-friendly than Synaptic, with screenshots, user reviews and so on. So I don't think this is a bad idea - they offer a service, and those who want to use it can. Those who don't won't. I don't really see what much there is to say about it...

Reply Score: 2

RE: CNR vs Synaptic
by starnix on Thu 25th Jan 2007 19:20 UTC in reply to "CNR vs Synaptic"
starnix Member since:
2006-05-12

"How is CNR any "easier" or "better" than Synaptic?"

1. It will work with deb based distros and rpm based distros natively.

2. It allows for the purchase of proprietary apps.


I really don't get all the fuss about this. Its just another option. If you don't want to use it, DON'T!!! But this way, I can setup a Ubuntu box for my mom and she will have no problem installing apps. Even apps that AREN'T IN ANY REPOSITORIES!!!! Hell, with this, I could just give my mom a Ubuntu CD and SHE could setup her own PC. This makes it foolproof.

Reply Score: 2

It's nice if that's all you need...
by Sphinx on Thu 25th Jan 2007 18:19 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

CNR works and while interesting, is certainly no replacement for portage or real package management. When it can reverse re-build all of your packages for updated dependencies after updating the entire os be sure and let me know.

And those who can't find a package, puh-leeeze what, browse and find on rpmfind.net was too tough? I know debian has one too.

Reply Score: 3

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"CNR works and while interesting, is certainly no replacement for portage or real package management. When it can reverse re-build all of your packages for updated dependencies after updating the entire os be sure and let me know. "

Never used portage myself, as I never had the time required to do a Gentoo build. What purpose is there for reverse build? Just curious..

Reply Score: 2

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

When an upgraded package breaks other packages that were dependent upon some other package you've upgraded, like switching core C library versions for instance.

Reply Score: 3

deanlinkous Member since:
2006-06-19

And those who can't find a package, puh-leeeze what, browse and find on rpmfind.net was too tough? I know debian has one too.
no that is tooo hard! Someone can search all day for naked pics of pamela lee or how to make shortbread cookies but somehow spire-ites think it is too hard to expect a new user to search for a app. Does anyone use a computer that cannot google? honestly!

Reply Score: 3

:)
by deanlinkous on Thu 25th Jan 2007 21:53 UTC
deanlinkous
Member since:
2006-06-19
RE: :)
by Sphinx on Fri 26th Jan 2007 06:19 UTC in reply to ":)"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Damn those simple instructions, takes an attention span longer than an MTV video to read. b-(

Reply Score: 3

its a STORE
by viator on Fri 26th Jan 2007 02:01 UTC
viator
Member since:
2005-10-11

CNR is just another way for LINSPIRE to make MONEY!
They sell proprietary apps along with the free stuff.
So why would any distro want to have cnr installed by default or at all when all it is is a money makeing STORE for LINSPIRE?

Reply Score: 4