Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jul 2007 00:21 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu The Ubuntu Live conference began yesterday in Portland Oregon with Mark Shuttleworth's keynote presentation. Shuttleworth, the Ubuntu project's charismatic leader, discussed a wide variety of topics relating to Canonical's business prospects and the future of the Ubuntu Linux distribution.
Thread beginning with comment 257884
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: release synchronization
by zsitvaij on Tue 24th Jul 2007 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: release synchronization"
zsitvaij
Member since:
2006-06-14

"I don't have Total Commander. But Ragnarok Online, Starcraft, Skype, Daemon Tools, GTK, Gimp, Gtk-Sharp, Firefox, Crimson Editor, ActivePerl, Delphi, Cygwin, they all install correctly."


And I suppose Windows Update takes care of those as well, then? You're deliberately missing the point of whole-system package management. Installation is but one.

" If we are talking about HTTP then the conversation would be like this: "


You keep bringing up protocols and web servers, when you're debating the webserver internals. The 'problem' is a level removed from where you're projecting it.

"Well duh, of course that RFC doesn't exist and will not exist if you keep going in circles."


Tell you what, write up that Request-For-Comments, and I'll provide comments on it.

"No, I'm saying source compatibility isn't enough. Software between distros *should* be both source compatible and binary compatible."


From where I stand, it seems plenty enough. Upstream provides the source tarball, your particular distro makes sure it works within their environment and provide the binary package for your convenience. How does this not work?

It's not the same as Windows, but this isn't Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 3

FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

"And I suppose Windows Update takes care of those as well, then? You're deliberately missing the point of whole-system package management. Installation is but one."

Yes I am. I'm not talking about whole-system package management. I'm talking about *binary compatibility*. I agree that Linux package management makes installation and updating a lot easier, but the binary incompatibilities between distributions bugs me.


"Upstream provides the source tarball, your particular distro makes sure it works within their environment and provide the binary package for your convenience. How does this not work?"

And this is exactly what I meant by "people don't recognize this as being a problem".

Imagine the following. You're using SomeDistro version 1.0, which ships Firefox 1.5. Today, Firefox 2.0 was released. You want to upgrade to Firefox 2.0, but uh oh, your distro only ships 1.5. You have to upgrade to SomeDistro 2.0 just to get Firefox 2.0. Doesn't that seem very odd to you? To upgrade an entire distro just to upgrade from Firefox 1.5 to 2.0?

Now, wouldn't it be a lot easier if you can just install upstream Firefox 2.0 binaries, that work on all Linux distros? And *this* is where binary compatibility jumps in. Mozilla has to maintain a dedicated, highly tweaked "build box" - a machine with a highly tweaked Linux distro - just to build binaries that work on most Linux distros. Do you think the average developer even has the resources to maintain such a dedicated build box?

Also, imagine yourself as being a commercial developer (yes yes closed source is evil yadda yadda). You have developed an extremely popular program called Photoshoot. Lots and lots of customers started to ask for a Linux port. Because of patents and the fact that you licensed third party libraries (and many other reasons), you cannot open source Photoshoot. And now what do you do? You can't ask distros to package your app. Isn't it a huge pain to make 5 different binaries, compiled on 5 different Linux distributions? Wouldn't why a single binary, that works on all distros, be a good thing?


"It's not the same as Windows, but this isn't Windows."

That's no excuse. If you say "Sure we don't have a GUI in FooOS like Windows does. But this isn't Windows." then you'll have a hard time convincing your grandmother to use FooOS.

Edited 2007-07-24 21:23

Reply Parent Score: 2

zsitvaij Member since:
2006-06-14

"Imagine the following. You're using SomeDistro version 1.0, which ships Firefox 1.5. Today, Firefox 2.0 was released. You want to upgrade to Firefox 2.0, but uh oh, your distro only ships 1.5. You have to upgrade to SomeDistro 2.0 just to get Firefox 2.0. Doesn't that seem very odd to you? To upgrade an entire distro just to upgrade from Firefox 1.5 to 2.0?"


Imagine that I'm running Gentoo, Arch, or any other distro with rolling updates. Oh, wait! I am!

If SomeDistro is worth it's salt, it will backport security fixes.

That's no excuse. If you say "Sure we don't have a GUI in FooOS like Windows does. But this isn't Windows." then you'll have a hard time convincing your grandmother to use FooOS.


Because granny is likely to care that FooBarBaz 1.4 went to 2.1 and upgrading to it right now will make or break the deal? Pure nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 2

zsitvaij Member since:
2006-06-14

Eh.. I notice you added a paragraph, but I've run out of editing time.

"Also, imagine yourself as being a commercial developer (yes yes closed source is evil yadda yadda). You have developed an extremely popular program called Photoshoot. Lots and lots of customers started to ask for a Linux port. Because of patents and the fact that you licensed third party libraries (and many other reasons), you cannot open source Photoshoot. And now what do you do? You can't ask distros to package your app. Isn't it a huge pain to make 5 different binaries, compiled on 5 different Linux distributions? Wouldn't why a single binary, that works on all distros, be a good thing?"


Let's for a moment suppose software patents are valid here (they aren't), and that I would want to run non-free software (I don't).

If you're in that kind of bind, you have the resources to ensure your binaries are LSB compliant and just drop it all to /opt. I understand its purpose was this. Then all you have to watch are glibc updates.

Also, I couldn't help but notice that you have the autopackage website as your homepage, and you've posted before claiming to be a developer. That certainly explains your unwillingness to acknowledge that the current system works.

Reply Parent Score: 4