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 312992
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Hand waving
by AdamW on Mon 5th May 2008 23:53 UTC
AdamW
Member since:
2005-07-06

Nice try, Thom - if you're just reading it casually you almost miss the hand-waving about binaries that don't belong in any particular 'program bundle', and about the issue of shared libraries, which is of course the big drawback of the OS X system that you *don't* mention (because it persists in your vision). If you use shared libraries, you have a reliance on your vendor (situation with all current Linux distributions). If you don't, you have security issues and ancient bugs that were fixed long ago cropping up all over the place (situation with Windows and OS X).

Reply Score: 8

RE: Hand waving
by Moulinneuf on Tue 6th May 2008 09:11 in reply to "Hand waving"
Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

you have a reliance on your vendor (situation with all current Linux distributions).


GNU/Linux as no reliance on vendor for anything.

The linux kernel as many version and modification of itself. So do the library , so do the x systems , so do the windows environment , etc ...

SLS ... Debian ... Ubuntu ...

SLS ... Slackware ... SLAX

Red Hat ... Mandriva ... PcLinuxOS

Xfree , X.org

KDE , Gnome , Xfce

ETC ...

You got acces to source code , it's Open Source developed , and it's Free software.

You can fix it yourself , train someone to fix it or hire someone else to fix it for you.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Hand waving
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 6th May 2008 10:07 in reply to "Hand waving"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Nice try, Thom - if you're just reading it casually you almost miss the hand-waving about binaries that don't belong in any particular 'program bundle',


Miss? It's right there in the article:

"I also took a cue from Mac OS X by creating the specific /System/Utilities directory, where the operating system can store utilities such as the Activity Monitor, graphical Bluetooth tools, Network Utilty (graphical ping, whois, etc.), those sorts of things. What does and doesn't go into that directory is fairly arbitrary, and is open for debate. Other binaries that usually reside in /bin on UNIX systems can also go into /System (say, something like /System/Binaries, since this is the 21st century - why use unclear acronyms)."

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Hand waving
by AdamW on Wed 7th May 2008 21:31 in reply to "RE: Hand waving"
AdamW Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, it is. That's the bit I'd characterize as hand-waving. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Hand waving
by shevegen on Tue 6th May 2008 13:11 in reply to "Hand waving"
shevegen Member since:
2008-04-04

'If you use shared libraries, you have a reliance on your vendor (situation with all current Linux distributions).'

That is true, and I am one that constantly critisizes the upstream vendors/maintainers as well, but you see - the situation on Mac is as bad as on Windows in that you are dependent on a company just as well.

So all these worlds more or less have similar problems. You depend on someone else.


Now, with similar problems already, I as a user would still like to choose AppDirs instead of FHS.

I dont want that others enforce the FHS upon me. But the big distributions have no inclination to change to AppDirs at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1