Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Jun 2009 12:24 UTC, submitted by ralsina
OSNews, Generic OSes There are a lot of people who believe that program and application management is currently as good as it gets. Because the three major platforms - Windows, Linux, Mac OS X - all have quite differing methods of application management, advocates of these platforms are generally unwilling to admit that their methods might be flawed, leading to this weird situation where over the past, say, 20 years, we've barely seen any progress in this area. And here we are, with yet another article submitted to our backend about how, supposedly, Linux' repository method sucks or rules.
Thread beginning with comment 370462
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: 0install
by giddie on Fri 26th Jun 2009 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 0install"
giddie
Member since:
2008-04-29

I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about impossibility. I was trying to ask leading questions so you'd realize your mistake.

Well, I'm open to the idea that I might make mistakes ;) However, I don't see my mystake so far.

There is simply no way to logically separate 'base' from 'applications'. Any distinction is purely arbitrary and highly mutable. Distributions do not generally have 'core' repositories, not in the way you mean. What they do have changes drastically with every release.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the whole idea comes crashing down. 0install already has a good framework for dealing with this -- it ties in with the native package manager to determine whether or not an adequate library for the given application is already installed. I'm worried you're letting implementation details get in the way of design ideas. It may be years and years before a good system emerges, but that doesn't mean it's impossible; it means we need a clear idea of where we're going.

What the user wants is "See any application, click application, have application."

Mmm; I think what users really want is "see application; use application". They don't really care about the "having / installing" bit. That, I think, is where package managers slip up.

I think it's important to note that "Centralized" package management is bad and was AFAIK never really intended to be the norm. Distributed, independent repositories is the way it ought to be done. Throwing out package management for most software is not a workable solution.

Mmm, again -- I don't think users want to think about repositories. It's a very developer-centric idea.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: 0install
by sorpigal on Mon 29th Jun 2009 11:37 in reply to "RE[4]: 0install"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

"I'm not talking about difficulty, I'm talking about impossibility. I was trying to ask leading questions so you'd realize your mistake.

Well, I'm open to the idea that I might make mistakes ;) However, I don't see my mystake so far.

There is simply no way to logically separate 'base' from 'applications'. Any distinction is purely arbitrary and highly mutable. Distributions do not generally have 'core' repositories, not in the way you mean. What they do have changes drastically with every release.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the whole idea comes crashing down.
"

Yes, it does.

0install already has a good framework for dealing with this -- it ties in with the native package manager to determine whether or not an adequate library for the given application is already installed.


Leading to a very messy situation in which every system is entirely unique and application dependencies are based on the order in which you installed them. No, thanks.

I'm worried you're letting implementation details get in the way of design ideas. It may be years and years before a good system emerges, but that doesn't mean it's impossible; it means we need a clear idea of where we're going.


Did I say it was impossible to have a good system? No, I said your approach wont work. I said separating core system from applications is impossible. And it is! I'm all for designing a good system, but your proposal is emphatically not it.

"What the user wants is "See any application, click application, have application."

Mmm; I think what users really want is "see application; use application". They don't really care about the "having / installing" bit. That, I think, is where package managers slip up.
"

When did I say "installing"? If I have a menu, such as the GNOME application menu, I have precisely the described workflow. I see an application, I click it, I have it.

If it's not the GNOME app menu but instead a web page then ideally the same thing would happen.

What has this got to do with having or not having package managers?

"I think it's important to note that "Centralized" package management is bad and was AFAIK never really intended to be the norm. Distributed, independent repositories is the way it ought to be done. Throwing out package management for most software is not a workable solution.

Mmm, again -- I don't think users want to think about repositories. It's a very developer-centric idea.
" [/q]

Whoever said that users would see repositories? It is not necessary for users to know how it works, I think you'll agree. What users want is:

1. See application.
2. Click application.
3. Have application.

There is no reason you need to throw away repositories to get this! I am, frankly, a bit suspicious of anyone who wants to throw away repositories and cannot provide an advantage to doing so other than a straw man of usability.

I think we're on the same page where a desire for increased usability is concerned, but you seem to have some strange notions of what is to blame for the current abysmal state of affairs.

Edited 2009-06-29 11:39 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2