Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Mon 11th Jan 2010 15:57 UTC
Original OSNews Interviews A few weeks ago, we asked for the OSNews community to help with some questions we were going to ask Aaron Griffin from the Arch Linux team, and the response was glorious and somewhat phenomenal. We added those questions to our own and sent them on over, and then we were surprised by receiving not only Aaron Griffin's responses but answers from various individuals from the team.
Permalink for comment 403719
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Ugh
by nt_jerkface on Tue 12th Jan 2010 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Ugh"
Member since:

* You can't expect application developers to build dozens of packages for every single distro out there. They simply don't have the time nor the motivation. So instead they should be concentrating on making the application itself as complete as possible

Well of course I am not suggesting that application developers build for every distro. There should be a move away from the shared library system or at least a standard library base that distros follow.

* FOSS software doesn't just run on Linux. There's *BSDs, OpenSolaris and even a few non-*nix OSs out there that also run FOSS software.

It also runs on Windows and OSX and yet in those cases only needs to be built once and the binary will work for the life of the OS.

The difference between Windows and Linux is windows does not provide any kind of package downstream - so MS are effectively washing their hands of any responsibility and expecting:

* the developers to build their own deployment packages (thankfully there's numerous tools out there to assist)

This isn't even a legitimate complaint given how easy the deployment wizards have become.

* and the users to have enough knowledge to differentiate between safe packages and malware.

That is a problem that doesn't require the shared library system to solve. You can have a safe repository of any type.

Sometimes the Windows model works - sometimes it doesn't. eg

It's also the model that OSX uses and it has far fewer headaches than ye old shared library system. Applications still break in Linux from library updates which typically requires command line meandering to fix . That's unacceptable for the general public.

So as much a waste of man-hours as you might perceive it - I'd always prefer the OS maintainers to control the package deployment any day (and just so long as I have the option to override their catalogue should the rare occasion occur that I need to)

The benefits from the shared library system such as a safe repository and application index can easily be added to an independent library system along with significant productivity gains.

But don't worry most people in Linux land are like you and defend ye old shared system that was designed to save hard drive space in an era when gigabyte drives didn't exist.

Reply Parent Score: 2