Linked by Mike Hearn on Wed 3rd Sep 2003 21:10 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



>> Autopackage looks really great, and I'm very impressed with it, but it's gonna be a challenge to get people to use and accept it.
No no no, it's going to be a 'challenge' to get _developers_ to use and accept it, not users.. (remember, autopackage downloads/installs itself when not installed on the system)
Why should they (the users) not choose to d/l an autopackage instead of RPM/tarball/whatever if the former is much easier to use and does much more work related to system integration of the packaged program?.
There's almost no cons with this system so I really don't see any challenge..
/me, being a developer for an unreleased OSS project, is definitely going to use it, so that's 1 developer less to be convinced
I'll promise to convince lots of other devs as well