Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th May 2009 22:04 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu Many Linux users have experience with Wine, the application compatibility layer which allows some Windows programs to run on UNIX-like machines. During Ubuntu's Open Week event, Mark Shuttleworth was asked about Wine, and how important he believes it is for the success of Ubuntu.
Thread beginning with comment 362049
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

That's so stupid it isn't even funny. How are software developers going to install their software, because they aren't going to wait months to get it into a repository? They probably don't want to make it publicly available in a repository either. How do you handle that? You don't.


Another wrong-headed idea about Linux.

What you do is you make your own repository. Then people who use a Linux distribution and a package manager to safely install software on their Linux systems, and who want your software, will simply add the URL to your new repository to the list of repositories they are using.

Like this one, as an example:

https://launchpad.net/~kubuntu-experimental/+archive/ppa

As for "publicly available" ... you do realise that repositories such as the one above have TWO lines because there are TWO repositories, one for binary packages (the deb one) and the other for source code (the deb-src one). If as a developer you don't want to give away the source code, then don't ... this doesn't stop you from making your own binary repository and getting your packages installed on people's Linux systems via package managers.

Now did that misunderstanding on your part boil away most of the rest of your argument? Well yes, pretty much.

What else did you claim?

There are things you can't do with Linux.


Name some, and we can discuss.

For starters, just look at the software available for Windows that people use in a wide variety of fields.


Specialist software (ie doesn't fit my "most users" criteria) ... only not available for Linux because vendors perceive a lack of a market.

There was a meme put about just recently that Linux has broken 1% market share ... less "self-interested" estimates would put this at anything from three to ten times as high. There is a market.

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3818696/Linux-Des...
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2009/05/linux-at-1-percent-ha-...
http://www.linux-mag.com/cache/7321/1.html

As soon as the generalist use market gets properly on to Linux, and the penetration expands, then the specialist software will follow.

After all, even for specialist software, it is not as if it CANNOT be done on Linux, only that it sometimes isn't done on Linux. A simple port would fix that.

Edited 2009-05-06 11:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Another wrong-headed idea about Linux. What you do is you make your own repository.

Hmmmmm, no. Linux distributions are still lacking an installation system to configure and install any given piece of software. Fact is, I can still configure MySQL in a much more pain-free way in Windows on installation than I can on Linux. While repositories and package managers provide a decent avenue for software installation on one hand, they take away with another. How do you get the software installed in the first place to add a repository URL?

I also don't see vendors creating several different packages for each distribution and different versions for each different distribution version where necessary as well as the updates for all of them. However, no one is writing applications for desktop Linux like that so we still get constant gripes about lack of functionality. No one is even packaging such apps for just Ubuntu, so that should tell you something. That's what ultimately tells me that Ubuntu's popularity is just fanboyism.

You don't know Linux distributions as well as you think you do and you've got yourself so much on one track that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Name some, and we can discuss.

Jesus H. Christ. That one sentence is enough to confirm to me that you're a bit of a loony. Basically, you will then wander off on Google and find some inadequate and half-completed open source alternatives. Take a look at what is written below:

Specialist software (ie doesn't fit my "most users" criteria) ... only not available for Linux because vendors perceive a lack of a market.

As I explained below this bone headed 80/20 thinking is blown away. It's a different 20% each time. Yep, people might do e-mail and web browsing but as soon as they want to play a game or install some CAD or even cross-stitch software you've lost them. You cannot pigeon-hole users like that.

Hell, even the areas where functionality is supposed to be strong such e-mail, fall short in many, many ways. After all these years Exchange is still an impediment. As tough as that is, that's the way it is. We still don't have an adequate Exchange client for desktop Linux nor do we have a very simple way of migrating Exchange and Active Directory to Linux based alternatives in a few clicks, which is strategically the better option.

You know, if Ubuntu or any desktop Linux system had a decent set of development tools and libraries available and a way of packaging things up and sensibly installing them then we could have had many software vendors writing Exchange client functionality add-ons and migration tools by now. This would have been done, dusted and would have moved desktop Linux on to the point where Exchange migrations would have made it far less of a problem. As it is, we're still talking about Exchange clients.

There was a meme put about just recently that Linux has broken 1% market share ... less "self-interested" estimates would put this at anything from three to ten times as high. There is a market.

If you can't write software and package it up to distribute to that market, and if you can't get that software to your users then you don't have a market at all.

After all, even for specialist software, it is not as if it CANNOT be done on Linux, only that it sometimes isn't done on Linux. A simple port would fix that.

You seem to be blissfully unaware of the issues involved in writing software and making a 'port'. You say that as if it's somehow a given which tells me that you don't know what's involved developing software. Not only are development tools important but the chances of any software vendor being able to package this up and have customers buy it in their local stores on media is zero right now.

Edited 2009-05-07 10:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

How do you get the software installed in the first place to add a repository URL?


My goodness, you have got to be kidding!

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=310816
Your system's sources.list file is in this dir: /etc/apt/sources.list.

...

copy and paste it in gedit. You could also use any other text editor, whatever you like and have installed.


The list of repositories is simply a text file (why would you need anything more complex than that?). You add a line or two to the end of it, with any text editor. Then you type "apt-get update". That is it.

That command will read the current list of packages from all of the repositories listed in the sources.list text file. The current list of packages and versions so obtained is compared with what you have installed. If you have a package installed at an earlier version then what is now in the corresponding repository, you can then type the following to upgrade:

apt-get upgrade

Easy peasy.

Or you can do it all with a GUI package manager, such as Synaptic, which comes as part of the base install.

http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/index.html
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html

http://www.brighthub.com/computing/linux/articles/21581.aspx
A source line for sources.list looks like this:

deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid main restricted

The sources.list file can be edited in three ways: via terminal using one of the text editors, Adept, and Synaptic.

E.g. Type in terminal:

nano /etc/apt/sources.list

Scroll to the bottom and add the line. You can put in a comment before the line to make a note for yourself that you added that line. The result should look like this:

# madberry's lines

deb http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ intrepid main restricted

To close the file, hit Ctrl+X, type yes, and then hit enter. The source is now added. Type the following commands in terminal to update the sources.

sudo apt-get update

sudo apt-get install PackageName


More info:

http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/apt-howto/ch-basico.en.html

I also don't see vendors creating several different packages for each distribution and different versions for each different distribution version where necessary as well as the updates for all of them.


https://launchpad.net/~voria/+archive/ppa

Look at that, a PPA for the Samsung NC10, just for Ubuntu.

I wonder if there is any open source support on Launchpad specifically for the eeepc?

https://launchpad.net/+search?field.text=eeepc

1 → 20 of 8700 other pages matching "eeepc"


8700 pages worth of hits. I guess there is.

However, no one is writing applications for desktop Linux like that so we still get constant gripes about lack of functionality. No one is even packaging such apps for just Ubuntu, so that should tell you something. That's what ultimately tells me that Ubuntu's popularity is just fanboyism.


https://launchpad.net/

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas


Statistics
* 8804 registered PPAs
* 2159 active PPAs
* 12025 published sources
* 56759 published binaries


That is just the Ubuntu PPAs (personal repositories outside of the official Ubuntu repositories) hosted on launchpad.net. Over two thousand active repositories on the one website. All of them for just Ubuntu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchpad_(website)

Then there are hundreds of other websites also hosting repositories.

http://code.google.com/opensource/

http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/

http://sourceforge.net/

http://savannah.gnu.org/

Others:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_software_hos...

Some feel for the size and scope of the free software movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_community

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_software

http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

http://www.blackducksoftware.com/development-cost-of-open-source
"According to our research there are over 200,000 OSS projects on the Internet representing more than 4.9 billion lines of available code. We estimate that reproducing this OSS would cost $387 billion and would take 2.1 million people-years of development."


The total number of people worldwide working the equivalent of full time on open source is estimated at about 1.5 million.

"no one is writing applications for desktop Linux"

You have GOT to be kidding. Surely.

I think you are in serious need of a reality check.

Edited 2009-05-07 13:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3