Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Oct 2006 19:43 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
Thread beginning with comment 177070
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"""Is it a mistake for you because of philosophical reasons or because of technical reasons?"""
Technical, of course. Is there some deep philosophical dimension to all of this that I am missing?
A large, complex OS without shared objects is like a large complex program without functions (or methods or the equilvalent). Sure, you can do it. But it'll be a mess to maintain, and it won't be very efficient.
At any rate, it's no skin off my nose. I've decided to just sit back and wait, and watch as the "no dependencies" crowd figures it out for themselves.
Edited 2006-10-31 14:16




Member since:
2005-06-29
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).