Linked by Thomas Leonard on Tue 16th Jan 2007 00:32 UTC
General Development In the Free and Open Source communities we are proud of our 'bazaar' model, where anyone can join in by setting up a project and publishing their programs. Users are free to pick and choose whatever software they want... provided they're happy to compile from source, resolve dependencies manually and give up automatic security and feature updates. In this essay, I introduce 'decentralised' installation systems, such as Autopackage and Zero Install, which aim to provide these missing features.
Thread beginning with comment 202088
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: B.A.D idea
by archiesteel on Tue 16th Jan 2007 07:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: B.A.D idea"
archiesteel
Member since:
2005-07-02

Yeah, but can you install that app from the developer's site with a GUI front-end if you wanted to?

I'm not sure you read what I posted correctly. I said that developers can provide standalone GUI installers or use on of the other (GUI) methods that use statically-linked libraries. I was not talking about compiling the apps...

but still want the latest and greatest just as much as the next person

See, that's where you get it wrong. Ordinary users don't want the latest and greatest, they want apps that work well. Constantly getting the latest version is something that Windows geeks do (the same hold true ex-Windows geeks using Linux, such as me).

When you say that everyone wants to run the latest and greatest, I believe you are projecting your own preferences onto the average user, and that you are mistaken in doing so.

Mind you, as I said I think developers should release statically-linked GUI installers in addition to tarballs, and let the distro makers update their repositories in all due time.

Also, as I've pointed out many times over the past few days, the Ubuntu repos are *very* up-to-date. If one cannot wait a day or two for an app to be released, then perhaps one needs to get a life... :-)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: B.A.D idea
by John Nilsson on Tue 16th Jan 2007 12:01 in reply to "RE[5]: B.A.D idea"
John Nilsson Member since:
2005-07-06

Ubuntus repositorys may be great fo mainstream apps, but as soon as you approach the corners of the known space such as new apps, or apps with very specific target groups the qualitu of service quickly drops.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: B.A.D idea
by archiesteel on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:03 in reply to "RE[6]: B.A.D idea"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Yes, which is why I say that developers of such apps should use one of the statically-linked, distro-neutral packaging options at their disposal.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: B.A.D idea
by tom1 on Tue 16th Jan 2007 13:02 in reply to "RE[5]: B.A.D idea"
tom1 Member since:
2005-07-12

See, that's where you get it wrong. Ordinary users don't want the latest and greatest,

Not as a rule, no. But when they ask for help "Evolution crashes when I try to read my mail from {odd mail server}!" they get told "Try version X - it's fixed there".

Should the distribution package the new barely-tested version? No. Most users want the stable version. But the user experiencing the crashes wants the new version.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: B.A.D idea
by archiesteel on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:10 in reply to "RE[6]: B.A.D idea"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

That's a good point. I guess that, with the repository system, it ultimately depends on how fast the packagers are at implementing bugfix versions into the main distro. So far with Ubuntu I've been lucky...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: B.A.D idea
by Lambda on Tue 16th Jan 2007 16:55 in reply to "RE[5]: B.A.D idea"
Lambda Member since:
2006-07-28

See, that's where you get it wrong. Ordinary users don't want the latest and greatest, they want apps that work well.

And see, that's where you get it wrong. The latest and greatest "developer release" tends to be better than the previous version. And the latest and greatest developer release tends to lag behind the repository version.

Hell, in Ubuntu you're in this bizarro world of various degrees of instability before a real release, and then nothing else besides security updates.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[7]: B.A.D idea
by archiesteel on Tue 16th Jan 2007 19:59 in reply to "RE[6]: B.A.D idea"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

And see, that's where you get it wrong. The latest and greatest "developer release" tends to be better than the previous version.

Yes, but often (in the Linux world) those "latest and greatest" are beta versions, which may introduce breakage, especially if they depend on lots of other packages.

And the latest and greatest developer release tends to lag behind the repository version.

I think you probably meant the opposite...

Again, the amount of lag varies. For me (someone who likes to try out new versions), I find that with Ubuntu the delays are acceptable.

Hell, in Ubuntu you're in this bizarro world of various degrees of instability before a real release, and then nothing else besides security updates.

Not so. Just add the "Backports" repository to Synaptic, and you'll get newer versions of apps for your stable distro.

And there are not "various degrees of instability". There is only the current release and the next (unstable) release. I think you're confusing Ubuntu with Debian here...

Reply Parent Score: 3