Yes boys and girls, it's Net Applications time. Sure, their figures are flawed, and sure, they're misused all over the non-scientifically educated media, but that doesn't mean they do not indicate trends. One of those trends was a slowly rising popularity of Linux, which hit 0.93% market share in August 2008, only to sink back again during the following months. Well, it's 
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-06
So the point is repositories should be removed so you can do something that you can already do?
You can install software downloaded straight from the web (be it with dependencies or stand alone stuff) and you can install commercial software distributed in any kind of media (cd, dvd, whatever).
How does removing repositories and the possibility of distributing modular software help in any way?
By the way, you can already install proprietary, stand alone software through the package manager.
On the other hand turning all software into monolithical, non dependant packages would raise other issues like duplicated libraries all over the system, on a wide range of versions, or not being able to take advantage of new features in software A until devs of software B, which depends on A, include the new version in their package.
I'd take the concept of small, specialized apps working together over the typical monolithic windows apps any day. It wouldn't make sense to do that without relaying on dependencies.
Member since:2007-02-17
I think you have a basic misunderstanding of repositories.
The package manager of typical Linux distribution does not use just one repository ... it uses a list of repositories. The end users can prioritise which repositories will be used ahead of others, and alternatively the end users can elect to install specific packages from a particular repository rather than the default.
There are quite a few applications (open source or otherwise) for which the installation method might be described similarly to this:
"Add the following line to /etc/apt/sources.list
deb http:/someserver.net/pub jaunty someapp
then do
apt-get update && apt-get install someapp"
This procedure, or its equivalent, adds a new repository to the list of repositories in use, and then installs a new application from that new repository.
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-basico.en.html
http://mirror.atrpms.net/ccrma/man/man5/sources.list.5.html
Packages in repositories can be either source code, or binary executables. There is no requirement that they be open source, and there is no requirement that they be maintained by the distribution.
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/third-party-apt
This spec makes it easy for users to install third party software and have it update automatically. By doing this in a consistent and standard way, we both discourage the use of difficult custom install methods and encourage better security than is currently practiced."
The reference to "ISVs" in the above quote means "Independant Software Vendors". It says absolutely nothing about the third-party software needing to be open source ... that is because it doesn't need to be open source.
Edited 2009-05-04 02:32 UTC
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2008-03-10
Well cost of maintaining repositories for one, that's quite a significant sum of money that would be better used elsewhere. Then there's a ridiculous hope that all software will be open source so we can put it into our repository, which isn't rational (Large complex projects are best done commercially, and small tools are best done with open source and that's just how it is.) Then there's at least 10 reasons why something might not work with dependencies and if it came bundled all of them would go away. Need for broadband to manage software... Once again - it's a no brainer decision. Space isn't that important, and the security is over the top for a desktop system.
That would be pointless, it's a major distro that needs to change.
Edited 2009-05-03 15:29 UTC