To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"""You say that because you're jealous. They were the first to put this into practice and implement the same installation procedure as Windows applications."""
No. I say it because it is true. I do happen to prefer Linux. But I feel that Linux and BSD are brothers and applaud the BSDs when they do cool things like reverse engineer wireless drivers. They are beating our butts on that count.
This PC-BSD packaging thing is just a mistake.
This PC-BSD packaging thing is just a mistake.
Is it a mistake for you because of philosophical reasons or because of technical reasons? If it's for technical reasons, this has been discussed a number of times, and there is nothing wrong having several times the same libraries on your system. It just uses a little bit more RAM/HDD, which is a tradeoff they decided to choose, update allows you to have a secure system, and they did the right choice because their PBI system works remarkably good.
What better solution do you suggest instead of their technique, keeping installation like the PBI concept using a self-extracting package for the end user and to solve the dependency nightware of other systems? (DesktopBSD's package system is no-go for Windows and Mac users).
the previous poster is also right about the design/technical deficiencies of the pbi system
This discussion goes nowhere... You say it's bad but you fail to explain why. Isn't PC-BSD's system like Windows' or OS X'software installers? Are these wrong? Oh please...
Ok, they're wrong because the user doesn't have to type sudo apt-get install.





Member since:
2005-06-29
You say that because you're jealous. They were the first to put this into practice and implement the same installation procedure as Windows applications. This is what people want and you're unhappy because now more people can use Linux/BSD. I see smoke over your head. Get a life...
They're on the right track.