Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Oct 2007 20:49 UTC, submitted by Flatland_Spider
PC-BSD Jan Stedehouder has used PC-BSD for thirty days to see what living with it is like. On day thirty, he concludes: "Does PC-BSD have the potential to be a serious contender for the open source desktop? I answered that question with a yes, because the potential is there. The solid FreeBSD roots, the very strong and very accessible information, the friendly and mature community and the PBI system provide the foundations for that potential. I don't think it is ready now and I couldn't recommend it yet to someone in the early stages of moving away from Windows to an open source desktop. But I do think that the PC-BSD team has the right target audience in mind and is building an system and a support system that addresses it's needs."
Thread beginning with comment 276458
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 10:53 UTC in reply to "Package Management"
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

PBIs are definitely not the answer. Really, they're a truly terrible idea.

Give me a break ... having a standalone installer packaged in one file IS the answer. It's so much more convenient. Take Windows for example ... I can use Google (or whatever search engine I like) to find the application I need, I download it and install it. Take Linux for example ... I search a database using a simplistic search engine for an application that might or might not be there (depending on the developers' mood or agenda); if I don't find it then I have to install some repository and search in there and then another one, and so on.

And what about updating? I don't mind every application doing it on its own when I use it, or doing it myself. I actually find that some old versions fit my needs better (for example Photoshop 7 works better for me than CS3). I don't care about vulnerabilities - not even once did one of my unupdated applications on my Windows box had any problems with this (of course, I don't use IE ;) ). If you ask me its just paranoia.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Package Management
by sbergman27 on Sat 6th Oct 2007 12:51 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""

Give me a break ...

"""

So many gems in this post:

1. "so much more convenient."

2. Take Windows for example

3. "I don't mind every application doing it on its own when I use it"

4. "I don't care about vulnerabilities..." and "If you ask me its just paranoia."


Why don't you just go ahead and say it. You know you want to: "Mediocrity is the level of standard we should be shooting for".

P.S. Please stop sending me Viagra offers.

Edited 2007-10-06 12:57

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Package Management
by dylansmrjones on Sat 6th Oct 2007 14:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

The problem is not individual installers. The problem is that updating them usually requires hunting the net for the updated packages.

Combine decentralized installation with central management (like the way one can update extensions for Firefox) and the problem is solved.

Think "Software Store". Or think "Package Update API". One click and the "Software Store" will search for new versions available of installed packages. It will then ask if it should download the installers. When downloads are finished it can either run them silently or possible run the inter-active installers.

For this to work the installed application must register itself in the Software Store. All this would require is a text file containing the URL to a directory containing future updates. Yeehaa... decentralized installation with optional centralized management and updating ;)

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

No need to use that condescending tone ... It wouldn't hurt if you actually wrote some arguments instead of presuming that they are so obvious that you just need to quote me and everybody would understand immediately why you think I'm wrong.

And yes, I'll give Windows as an example since it has 90% market share. I can also give Mac OS as an example if you want.

And yes, I don't update my applications except Firefox which updates itself, and I haven't had any problems because of this. I'm running Acrobat Reader 6.0 (unupdated), Open Office 2.2, ACDSee 2, ZoneAlarm (6.something, probably not the latest), Yahoo Messenger 8.0, Photoshop 7 and I could go on. If I upgrade an app is because I like a feature in that app and rarely because of security. And let me emphasize this: I don't have worms, trojans, viruses or any other kind of malware.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Package Management
by Oliver on Sat 6th Oct 2007 13:36 in reply to "RE: Package Management"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>I don't care about vulnerabilities

Mmh, strange? Why not just use Windows?

>If you ask me its just paranoia.

No it's knowledge. And to some extent this is part of the problem with Windows. People don't know anything, but they want to use everything.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Package Management
by pandronic on Sat 6th Oct 2007 15:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Package Management"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Mmh, strange? Why not just use Windows?

Well, *shocker* I'm using it almost exclusively, but I'd like to see a free viable alternative.

Reply Parent Score: 2