OSNews

Sure, if its drivers to search for, then the whole one-by-one routine sucks, especially if it is something that should've come with it in the first place. But if its an application that I can do without unless I find a particular need for it at a particular time, then finding the best application on a one-by-one basis is, IMO, the better route, since often the distro's repositories may not have it in store (like, say, http://www.kde-apps.org).

In fact, the "repositories" thing was one of the more annoying issues that I had with Ubuntu (Hoary). Any application that was available in the Ubuntu repositories was all that was available to use. I doubt that it has changed since then.

I seriously find the usual pro-repositories argument (that it ensures security) to be pretty ironic and silly in its assumption of user stupidity. I mean, if you wanted to ensure that the user didn't botch up his system through unknowingly installing a malformed application, then why is it that you sat them in front of an operating system that interacts so closely to the hardware in the first place, and not place the desktop system on a virtualization layer that the user can use without ever even hoping to botch the computer up?

I call that "distribution stupidity" at its finest. They expect Windows- (and Mac-)to Linux users to switch their preformed mentalities to the 30-year-old Unix model, which was designed for networks and servers in mind, not desktop computers.

Again, if you want to keep the user from botching the thing up without making him feel debilitated with a repository of "approved apps", then virtualize the desktop utilites - KDE, klik, the filesystem - through FUSE, and keep the ugly network operating system (GNU/Linux) running underneath, out of sight and out of mind.

Don't let the "st00pid luser" touch the "perfect", "genius" Unix filesystem, gcc, the kernel, none of that, and you won't have any problems or issues.

/end rant

Edited 2007-10-03 04:48

> I seriously find the usual pro-repositories argument
> (that it ensures security) to be pretty ironic and
> silly in its assumption of user stupidity.

A somewhat limited selection of stable software packages with all the dependencies resolved is one of the characteristics of every package-based distribution. You would appreciate this more if you ever were in 'dependency-hell'. If you find that Ubuntu doesn't have the latest versions for software packages you need, you can switch to a more bleeding-edge distribution like debian-testing or fedora.

Apart from that you can always compile your own stuff from tar-balls or build your own packages.
What you call "distribution stupidity" is really only your own limitation, no offense meant.

Actually you don't have to use whats in the repositories with Ubuntu. You can download any .deb package that is compiled to run on Ubuntu and just like with PBI's or EXE's you can double click it and run it (Install it)

The repository only statement is a long gone myth from when Ubuntu first came out.

Wow, I'm extremely surprised someone said it.
PC-BSD is the ONLY *NIX distribution that got it right. Having bottled applications is the way to go.
PBIs make it easier to develop, deploy, use and maintain software. Everything is in one place, no dependency hell at all, both the developer and the user don't even have to care about what's already installed on the system and what's not.

Windows got it right: there's no central "repository", except for maybe updates and security patches. The software market is free and sky is the limit. Mac OS X made it trivial: just download the container and run the application. It's as simple as that.

Whereas in Debian, Fedora or Ubuntu one has to upgrade the whole operating system just to get the latest version of Firefox or other basic piece of software. This approach is stupid, clumsy, messy and definitely a turn-off for users coming from the Mac or Windows world.

Of course, changing this paradigm in a Linux distro nowadays is almost impossible: the sheer number of libraries needed for various software could easily bring a modern HDD to its knees, not to mention the amounts of RAM required. But who am I to argue, when we all know "choice is good". Look where aimless development has brought the Linux world: in chaos. I am not arguing for voluntary boycott of toolkits, libraries or programming languages, but for more responsibility on behalf of developers and less ego.

Security issues are indeed more easier to fix when using a centralized package management system, however, that does not mean it's impossible or even hard to fix them when we use the decentralized approach. Staying current with the latest vulnerabilities should be the developer's job. Installing the security updates from upstream should be the user's job.

Since we're discussing package management, lame excuses like "you can always compile the software you want" are just that: lame. Compiled software is software the package manager is NOT aware of. Worse, try installing Firefox 2 on Dapper or Firefox 3 on Gusty - whether compiled or installed from a deb - it's the same thing. The means of installation are irrelevant, what's certain is you now have a more recent version of Firefox that can break the fragile ecosystem in the OS. Same for any software the Ubuntu Backports team refuse to backport. They clearly state they won't backport vital software since there's a high chance something will go wrong.

Centralized models such as Ubuntu's are a developer's hell. How is one supposed to write software for a constantly moving "platform"? Every six months the applications have to undergo major changes just to be compatible with the new release.

Where's the base system? Oh, right, there is none. The software on the install CD is just a part of a repository that is a snapshot frozen in time of whatever was available at the moment of the release. These guys managed to b0rk the definition of an operating system by trying to shove every existing piece of software in the repositories. A tedious, sisiphyc task that can be easily avoided if a decentralized model is used. Hell for testers, hell for package maintainers, hell for users.

And when something like PC-BSD appears the zealots bash it just because it's different. How about you continue to use your Debians, your Fedoras and your Ubuntus and leave PC-BSD alone?

FYI, I am not a PC-BSD user, because I dislike KDE. But I can praise real achievements when I see them. Kudos to the PC-BSD team for daring to create the PBI system in a world full of ignorance.

"The installer is cool if you are a former Windows user but a pain in the butt if you are used to APT. Yes APT has its issues but I love the fact that when I install a machine I can just pick all the things at once and let them just install. No looking around the software website and then downloading each app and installing one at a time by hand. That is the old convoluted Windows way. Blah."

Did you even read the headr of this news?

(...) equally so if you are an experienced techie you can get into the FreeBSD ports tree and compile to your hearts content."

PCBSD = FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE + KDE + Graphical Installer + PBIs + ...

FreeBSD Ports ars still AVIALABLE and ready to use at AYNTIME, same for binary packages added by pkg_add -r package.

PBIs are mostly user for applications that require a lot more then pkg_add -r package, for example installation of Photoshop, Dreamweaver or even Internet Explorer (since developers need it) using wine, check this link for details: http://forums.pcbsd.org/viewtopic.php?t=8467

Next time read at least a news header before spreading misinformation.

Ummmmmm, duh please read things before you comment! I didn't say anything at all about ports!

My comment was about the ease of use of PCBSD, I am sorry but if you have used PCBSD you will notice that they push their installer and don't tell you anything about ports!

Now I know ports can be used and you know ports can be used but would a regular user know that? NOOOOOOO! And PCBSD is geared to the regular user just like Ubuntu!

So before you say someone is spreading misinformation, learn some information and read before you run your mouth. You wont sound so silly next time!

I'm not the biggest fan of the package installer in PC-BSD, but there is the alternative of "ports", which covers just about everything.

Personally I prefer it to Kubuntu because, as a former SuSE user (since 6.2/1999) until Novell messed it over, I like a "classic" KDE desktop, IMHO Kubuntu, though very usable to a new Linux user, omits many of the best KDE features, and isn't as well integrated.

>It's not to the level of Ubuntu.

Thanks god :-)