"In a fairly short time, Novell has transformed itself from a firm that had next to nothing to do with Linux into one of the Penguin's most visible and aggressive flag-bearers. For evidence of this metamorphosis, we need look no further than Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, which breaks ground in the client operating system territory that Linux leader Red Hat has so far opted scarcely to tread. SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop, or SLED, is the most polished Linux client operating system we've yet tested, and well-deserving of our Analyst's Choice designation."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-13
Is it me, or would you like to introduce problems proprietary/closed source software developers face to the open source world? No thank you for me there.
Like what, having their installs work 99% of the time? Look, I'm not proposing a binary-only package-management standard here. Obviously, the standard would include rules for both source and binary packages, so that people can have their cake and eat it too. Then, once there's a standard described for the packages, you could use a CLI package manager, GUI, web-based, or whatever you want.
People understand the importance of standards when it comes to things like document formating, video codecs, etc. Why packages are excluded from this mentality is beyond me.
You said something about binary incompatability. I assume by that you mean that binaries would be incompatable across Linux distros. In that case, I'd say that is a problem all its own. I guess Linux isn't really Linux afterall, but instead a lot of 'Linux-like' operating systems that are incompatable with each other, unless you stick with source-only packages. I know that in the Stallmanites' utopian society, this is the ideal solution. But in the real world, people also need binary packages, so the system should work equally well for both.
Member since:2005-07-02
Look, I'm not proposing a binary-only package-management standard here. Obviously, the standard would include rules for both source and binary packages, so that people can have their cake and eat it too.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see what access to source packages has to do with the method used for software distribution and installation. You can have binary-only apt/rpm repositories. It's also relatively easy for commercial software vendors to set to either provide debs/rpms for the main distros or use one of the many standalone installers for Linux (usually with statically-linked libs, which is what Windows does anyway unless I'm mistaken).
You said something about binary incompatability. I assume by that you mean that binaries would be incompatable across Linux distros. In that case, I'd say that is a problem all its own. I guess Linux isn't really Linux afterall, but instead a lot of 'Linux-like' operating systems that are incompatable with each other, unless you stick with source-only packages. (emphasis mine)
I think you went a bit too easily from supposition to affirmation here. The truth is that Linux binaries are in fact compatible across distros. Incompatibiliy (rarely) arise when binaries require libraries of a certain type, and/or that are in certain places. This will mostly affect older binaries, and statically-linked apps are of course not affected by this at all. It has nothing to do with binary incompatibility.
I know that in the Stallmanites' utopian society, this is the ideal solution.
I consider such attempts at threadjacking to be both insulting and off-topic. Down you go.
But in the real world, people also need binary packages, so the system should work equally well for both.
It does.
Edited 2006-08-08 05:38
Member since:
2005-08-15
[QUOTE]
"Yeah, just run Synaptic and pick." But then if I say what if I want such-and-such app, then you say "Oh, well just edit this config file and then go to the command-line and type ..." WRONG!!! Sorry, you lose. Either it's easy or it isn't.
[/QUOTE]
Then I say: go to adept, manage repositories, enable the universe/multiverse... or any repo you want... No "manually editing" of /etc/apt/sources.list is needed, what year do you live in?
There is a reason why some repos are disabled by default, it can breake your system, or can be illegal, the same goes for other binaries Mark Shuttleworth has explained it often why binary compatibility isn't necesary or even wanted: it's too fricking easy to become binary incompatibility. And well just face it, open source has the advantage of compiling it from source, why bother with the problems proprietary companies face.
Is it me, or would you like to introduce problems proprietary/closed source software developers face to the open source world? No thank you for me there.