Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Jun 2009 12:24 UTC, submitted by ralsina
OSNews, Generic OSes There are a lot of people who believe that program and application management is currently as good as it gets. Because the three major platforms - Windows, Linux, Mac OS X - all have quite differing methods of application management, advocates of these platforms are generally unwilling to admit that their methods might be flawed, leading to this weird situation where over the past, say, 20 years, we've barely seen any progress in this area. And here we are, with yet another article submitted to our backend about how, supposedly, Linux' repository method sucks or rules.
Permalink for comment 370243
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: 0install
by giddie on Thu 25th Jun 2009 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE: 0install"
giddie
Member since:
2008-04-29

What is this 'huge difference' and who would decide which software is 'core' and which is an 'application'. Furthermore, what if there's non-core software that's not an application?


I'm not suggesting a complete system here -- just a concept. The point I'm making is that central package management works brilliantly for installing a missing library or command-line tool. However, package managers are a pain to use for graphical user applications, which need a more distributed and flexible approach. It's simply a pain when you come across an interesting app, but have to go through the whole process of compiling + packaging just to try it out. Mac + Windows users get to just download and try it out, why not us too?

However, to answer your question -- plenty of distros already have a concept of a "core" repo. It should actually be quite possible to have a unified system that works despite of differences in the available core packages. 0install already does a good job of this.

Finally, it's important to remember a core design principle here: consider the interface before the implementation. We need to think of how users want to use their systems, and not let difficulty of implementation get in the way of good design.

Reply Parent Score: 1