Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Jun 2010 09:42 UTC
Google Google employees have always had a remarkable amount of freedom when it comes to what operating system they wanted to run on company computers - Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, it was all fine. Since the China attacks, however, this has changed: Windows is no longer welcome on Google computers.
Thread beginning with comment 427581
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Using Chrome OS
by karl on Tue 1st Jun 2010 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Using Chrome OS"
karl
Member since:
2005-07-06

OS X simply does not have any package management. Stating that repositories is retarded in contrast to the utter lack of package management in OS X is itself a "retarded" statement.

Now one may argue about the relative ease of installation/uninstallation of apps in OS X, and there is much to be said for how OS X does this.

The reason why Linux does not offer something like what OS X does is really simple. In fact there have been umpteen failed attempts to implement something similar for Linux. That reason is: Linux, at least in terms of desktops/servers(not so much for the embedded space/and tablets/smartphones etc.), is simply not possible without package management(apologies to the LFS guys/gals). Package management is a fundamental necessity due to the incredibly large number of diverse libraries and the resultant dependencies.

Linux is not like OS X or windows for that matter. For every one kind of library that exists for OS X there are 10 different ones for Linux. And then of course there are many, many concurrent versions of said libraries.

Now one could argue that there should not be so many different libraries or that there should only be one current version in use of any library. But that would not be Linux.

Personally I find having to hunt all over the web for an application and download it from some random website and install it is a horrible way of installing software. There are so many security issues involved with this method that no one who is remotely security conscious could truthfully advocate such a system.

Simply put repositories and package management systems are the solution to managing the inherit complexity in application distribution in Linux. And frankly when I use OS X I miss having access to the repositories that I take for granted, having been a Linux user for the last 15 years.

For all the apparent advantages to the relative simplicity of of app install/uninstall on OS X, the fact that each app is an island unto itself and that there is no "system" is markedly deficient and lacking in my eyes.

The homogeneity of the Mac software ecosystem(all the way down to the IPad) obviates much of the need for such mature solutions like repositories and package management. But this is due to the relative lack of libraries and functionality provided within that software ecosystem, which on the whole, is far, far less mature than what is offered under Linux.

Maybe one day, when OS X grows up, we will see package management on OS X too ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Using Chrome OS
by nt_jerkface on Wed 2nd Jun 2010 01:57 in reply to "RE[7]: Using Chrome OS"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

OS X simply does not have any package management. Stating that repositories is retarded in contrast to the utter lack of package management in OS X is itself a "retarded" statement.


Oh look another Linux status quo defender. How refreshing.

OSX doesn't have package management because Apple engineers designed an application management system that works. They looked at the shared library system in traditional Unix and decided that it was not worth including.


Package management is a fundamental necessity due to the incredibly large number of diverse libraries and the resultant dependencies.


No it isn't, people like you are either unable or unwilling to think of better solutions.


Linux is not like OS X or windows for that matter. For every one kind of library that exists for OS X there are 10 different ones for Linux. And then of course there are many, many concurrent versions of said libraries.

Even if Linux had 1000x the amount of libraries available that still doesn't require that applications share as many libraries as possible.


Personally I find having to hunt all over the web for an application and download it from some random website and install it is a horrible way of installing software.


That functionality doesn't require shared libraries. It can be done with binaries. See the portable apps suite as an example:
http://portableapps.com/news/2010-05-28_-_portableapps.com_platform...


There are so many security issues involved with this method that no one who is remotely security conscious could truthfully advocate such a system.


A repository with statically linked libraries or verified binaries can have the same level of security.


Simply put repositories and package management systems are the solution to managing the inherit complexity in application distribution in Linux.


No they exist as way to preserve hard drive and memory space, a reason that is no longer valid. I can dig up an old IBM paper on Unix that states this as the main purpose of the shared library system if you would like.


But this is due to the relative lack of libraries and functionality provided within that software ecosystem, which on the whole, is far, far less mature than what is offered under Linux.


So if OSX developers had more libraries to choose from then a shared library system would be needed? That doesn't make any sense. More libraries for OSX would just result in more options for developers. There is no reason why the software management system would have to be changed.

OSX is certified Unix and users can install updates for programs without having to worry about a package manager breaking existing programs. They can also install updates directly from the developer instead of waiting for the update to trickle through the distro which is a security compromise. The shared library system is retarded in comparison. Users should not have to wait months to update a single program and a system update should not be able to break working applications.

Reply Parent Score: 2