Linked by Jason Vagner on Fri 16th Apr 2004 20:37 UTC
O'Reilly's latest entry in the "Pocket" series, "Linux Pocket Guide", bills itself as a "quick reference for experienced users and a guided tour for beginners".
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.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
The goal is to be using 100% Open Source apps
And who's goal is this? Certainly not mine. And even if I did use 100% open source apps, I'm not a programmer so you could throw all the 'hostile code' you wanted in there and I'd never know the difference.
so that way you don't need a package from the app creator, the package maintainers for the distro just need to package it up. Yes, it's different than Windows, but it allows for more freedom.
The only problem with this solution is that you're pretty much at the mecry of the distro maintainers to make packages for every single app you use, and do it in a timely manner. It's eitehr that, or else it's back to configure, make, make install, and dependency hell. I don't know how many times I've tried using these package managers, only to find that the app I'm looking for either is not available or hasn't been updated in ages.
IMHO, the right way to do it is to have a standard for package management. Now, notice I said standard package MANAGEMENT, not package MANAGER. So, you come up with some sort of RFC (or whatever) that explains how an app is to be packaged and installed, and let each package manager implement that standard in whatever way it chooses. That way, the end users are happy because there is a standard and the OSS crowd (who seem to be obsessed with having at least 4,000 ways to do any one thing - I presume just so that they have this illusion of freedom) shoudl be happy as well.