Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th May 2008 21:00 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Ever since I started using computers, I've been baffled by the relative clumsiness of installing applications. Whether we are talking the really old days (launching the Rambo game off a tape), the '90s (running Keen or using installers in Windows 95), or the modern days (still those installers, but now also package management and self-contained applications); it's all relatively cumbersome, and they all have their downsides. I decided to put my money where my mouth is, and come up with my idealistic, utopian method of installing, running, updating, and uninstalling applications.
Thread beginning with comment 312950
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
GoboLinux
by Invincible Cow on Mon 5th May 2008 21:31 UTC
Invincible Cow
Member since:
2006-06-24

Isn't this just a less elegant version of GoboLinux with added live (and I repeat -- they really are live) queries?

Reply Score: 1

RE: GoboLinux
by glubamazing on Mon 5th May 2008 22:38 in reply to "GoboLinux"
glubamazing Member since:
2008-05-05

Isn't this just a less elegant version of GoboLinux (...)?

Quite right. This does not seem quite that utopian - everything to do this is already there. The reason nobody has set up something quite like it, is that its not such a good idea after all.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: GoboLinux
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 5th May 2008 22:48 in reply to "RE: GoboLinux"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Quite right. This does not seem quite that utopian - everything to do this is already there.


Oh? You do know what GoboLinux is, right?

The reason nobody has set up something quite like it, is that its not such a good idea after all.


Care to elaborate? That's four pages of detailed explanations and user scenarios you just read, and all you can counter it with is "not such a good idea"?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: GoboLinux
by wannabe geek on Mon 5th May 2008 23:13 in reply to "GoboLinux"
wannabe geek Member since:
2006-09-27

It looks somewhat similar, but Gobolinux is an attempt to achieve modularity within the typical GNU/Linux paradigm, where there's no distinction between the base system and the applications, that is, any package can depend on other packages that may or may not be present, and it can fullfill the requirements of yet other packages.

On the other hand, Thom's proposal assumes a base system, which makes it more like PC-BSD or Mac OS X. Once you have a system/applications distinction, package management is almost trivial. But then all distros would have to agree on one base system, which would either kill the well-known configurability of GNU/Linux (as in being able to have a very small installation) or be such a small system that lots of duplicated libraries would coexist, among other problems. The LSB guys have been trying to do just that for years, and I don't know how much success the've had, but the fact is that third-party program packages are still distro-specific. TANSTAAFL :p

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: GoboLinux
by shevegen on Tue 6th May 2008 13:09 in reply to "RE: GoboLinux"
shevegen Member since:
2008-04-04

'The LSB guys have been trying to do just that for years'

No they have not.
The LSB extends upon the FHS. How can they achieve AppDirs (or AppDir like solutions) when they extend the FHS?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: GoboLinux
by hobgoblin on Tue 6th May 2008 04:10 in reply to "GoboLinux"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

the thought crossed my mind as well...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: GoboLinux
by butters on Tue 6th May 2008 07:24 in reply to "GoboLinux"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Isn't this just a less elegant version of GoboLinux?



No, it's an elaboration on MacOS X. The system bundle is presumed to provide a generous set of shared libraries and prolonged ABI stability -- no small feat.

As with MacOS, any library excluded from the stable system bundle must be statically linked into all dependent program bundles, each of which may contain a different outdated version of the library.

The main differences from MacOS are the semantic filesystem and the bundle repository, along with the minor hierarchy change. It wouldn't be difficult to prototype this system for OS X using Spotlight or perhaps Nepomuk.

I have one question for Thom: I assume the desktop environment would be part of the system bundle so that its libraries could be shared amongst program bundles. So where on the filesystem would the per-user settings for such system components live? For example, does my wallpaper belong in /Settings/butters/System or /System/Settings/butters?

Reply Parent Score: 2