OSNews

No shit, Sherlock. That's why we need a standard

Yeah, because that's worked SO WELL for Microsoft. They have standard File System guidelines too, and how well do they work? Once again, file system structure is opinion as well. There is already the Standard File System Hierarchy, but that provides flexability. Some distros like /opt, some don't. Some use /usr/local, some don't.

Changing UNIX, which is over 30 years old isn't going to happen.


Doesn't this only apply if you're compiling from source? If the package is a binary one (as in Debian), then what difference does any of this make?

That's the point, there are many features/options that are only available at compile time, and when you only distribute ONE binary package, you lose the ability to get those different options.

For example, look at the standard Mozilla binary for Linux. I believe it still uses GTK1 and no Xft. I have an LCD monitor, and un-antialiased fonts (Xft provides the AA) are unbearable. Luckily, Arch's package has Xft/GTK2 enabled, so I'm fine. Different strokes for different folks. I wouldn't use Mozilla if I could only use their standard package.

Another easy example is binary compatibility. The easiest way to make sure you don't have glibc/gcc issues is for the package maintainers to rebuild things when they break (due to upgrading gcc/glibc). If we all used the developer's package, we'd have to wait until they update it. But the problem is that all distros dont use the same glibc/gcc version (you can't stop this, distros update at various times). So now you end up with a bunch of different packages anyway.

Ok, so maybe you can find up-to-date versions of 19 out of 20 packages. But it always seems like it's that 20th one I'm looking for.

Well, all the distros I mentioned earlier have a forum/mailing list/something. If a package is out of date, just make a post and it'll be updated. Arch even has a little button next to each package on the website that lets you flag a package out of date right there.

But of course, no distro is perfect, and some packages will go out of date, but VERY few (and none of the major ones).

New versions of what, specifically? Everything?

Yes, Everything. :-)

The only reason a new version wouldn't come is if there is some technical issue holding it back.


And I understand how the package would work, but there is already a "standard" distribution method that you seem to be missing. That's the source tarball. Like I said, the developer should only have to release that and the package maintainers will compile and build a package for you.


And on your email analogy, email clients STORE the mail in many different ways. Only the protocols are standard (not the same as a package). You would compare a package to an mbox file, or maildir, or mh, etc. There are about 5-6 major mail storage formats, all used by various clients. Yet somehow, we manage to survive. ;-)