Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 16th Sep 2005 21:02 UTC, submitted by Josh
Linux Klik is a system which creates self-contained packages of programmes installable over the web with a single click. In this article Kurt Pfeifle discusses the potential uses of this technology for helping the non-coding contributors to KDE. He also looks at how the system works and the obvious security issues involved.
Thread beginning with comment 32914
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

On Linux distros a set of basic _packages_ make the OS.

The discussion is not about OS installation but application management. And it's not forbidden for Linux to install additional libraries as part of the OS core, if the library is widely used.
BTW: An OSX system installation consists of a set of packages, too (e. g. the base system, the BSD subsystem, the X11 package, etc.).


Hence I deduce it would be technically possible to create 3rd party package repositories for Windows as well. No freedom lost.

Yes. But that contradicts the repository paradigm. How does your software management system knows where to get software if not from a central repository? You have to configure your management app to get software from elsewhere. And that means "discover" it first - and voilą: your back at the good old discovery paradigm.

The MS example was only to illustrate that people probably would not accept such a thing from a commercial OS vendor, so I fail to see why this would be a positive goal for free software. Centralization might make software management easier but that has a price: Not only does it create dependency, it creates also centralized points of failures and insecurity (e. g. if your repository get's hacked).

Reply Parent Score: 1

jziegler Member since:
2005-07-14

The discussion is not about OS installation but application management. And it's not forbidden for Linux to install additional libraries as part of the OS core, if the library is widely used.

Probably misunderstood you on this one. Nevermind.


The MS example was only to illustrate that people probably would not accept such a thing from a commercial OS vendor, so I fail to see why this would be a positive goal for free software.

Because it works? It works satisfyingly well for me (and probably for other Debian users as well). OK, it comes with a price - dependancy, single point of failure.

Dependancy is a moot point - you are always dependent on your OS vendor on some point.

Single point of failure - not completely true, there are mirrors. Though they will mirror any insecurity created in the original, they will provide the required data even when the original source experiences failure.

I gladly pay this price compared to manual downloading of each package, or going back to statically linked apps, or having a library installed numerous times for "self-contained" apps.

I do not claim that the packaging systems used by Linux distributions are the perfect way to distribute software. However, I have not experienced anything better, nor did I like anything presented in the discussion under this article. Everything seems less powerfull than what we already have.

Reply Parent Score: 1