Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th Jan 2008 21:51 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 296714
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.
"It does. Read the LSB spec. RPM is that official format
Yes, and a fat lot of good it's done us all. Most distributions still don't use RPM, and just because you have two distributions using RPMs it doesn't mean that a single RPM package will work for both. The LSB at times reads like the whole early nineties Unix 'This is the standard' thing - and then people went of and used something else regardless. "
Yeah, like that whole standard for TCP/IP, HTTP, POP, MIME, etc. Standards from 10-30 years ago are so useless.
Yeah, like that whole standard for TCP/IP, HTTP, POP, MIME, etc. Standards from 10-30 years ago are so useless.
Are you really that much of an idiot, or did you not understand why those 'standards' became standards? TCP/IP was widely used because it was the best option, and it broke free of all the vendors' proprietary networking protocols. HTTP, POP etc. were used simply because they provided something new (internet access and e-mail) that hadn't been available before.
In essence, people used them because they were the best and provided them with something new.
RPM? I'm afraid no one is going to use it because a committee said so. It isn't unique, doesn't provide anything new that people just want to use and is re-inventing age-old concepts. That's what design-by-committees don't get. They, and you it seems, still believes that if you label something a standard then people will just use it.
"It does. Read the LSB spec. RPM is that official format
Yes, and a fat lot of good it's done us all. Most distributions still don't use RPM, and just because you have two distributions using RPMs it doesn't mean that a single RPM package will work for both. The LSB at times reads like the whole early nineties Unix 'This is the standard' thing - and then people went of and used something else regardless. "
The same can be said for debian distributions. .deb packages don't magically work on all debian derivatives either.
The same can be said for debian distributions. .deb packages don't magically work on all debian derivatives either.
Yer, and? Does that justify sticking RPM within LSB and saying "Though wilt use this"? Whatever is in the LSB, referring to my comment above, has to do something different, better and solve some fundamental software installation problem (God alone knows Linux distros have many) that will make people want to use it. As it stands, RPM just isn't it, and telling everyone it's a standard, default etc. will make no difference.






Member since:
2005-07-06
Yes, and a fat lot of good it's done us all. Most distributions still don't use RPM, and just because you have two distributions using RPMs it doesn't mean that a single RPM package will work for both. The LSB at times reads like the whole early nineties Unix 'This is the standard' thing - and then people went of and used something else regardless.