Linked by David Adams on Fri 18th Jun 2010 19:17 UTC
Linux Linux Magazine has a profile of Daniel Fore and the Elementary project. Elementary is a Linux distro that's committed to a clean and simple user experience, but it's more than a distro - it's actually a multi-pronged effort to make improvements to the user experience for a whole ecosystem of components, including icons, a GTK theme, Midori improvements, Nautilus, and even Firefox. The work that elementary is doing isn't limited to their own distro, and some of their work is available in current, and perhaps future, Ubuntu releases. The results are really striking, and I think it's probably the handsomest Linux UI I've ever seen.
Thread beginning with comment 430591
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
jtfolden
Member since:
2005-08-12

I've yet to see a simple, easy-to-use, universal solution to upgrading apps on Linux.

I'm talking about not having to upgrade your whole distro just to use the latest release of your favorite music player, etc...

This happens all the time.

"For example, if Ubuntu ships with OpenOffice.org 2.0.x, it will remain at OpenOffice.org 2.0.x for the entire 6-month release cycle, even if a later version gets released during this time. The Ubuntu team may apply important security fixes to 2.0.x, but any new features or non-security bugfixes will not be made available."

Sure there are "backports" but lots of apps never get this treatment.

This is not normally an issue on Windows or Mac OS X.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Oh but you *can* always have the latest releases, or even pre-releases, with either rolling-release distros like Arch, "testing" repositories, or downloading and installing a .deb/.rpm of the update.

I prefer not to do so when I don't need to, because I prefer the increased stability of a stable installed base. But you can do that. As an example, my old Ubuntu box had repositories for GIMP betas and Emesene nightlies. Others have one for Opera.

Just imagine one second, knowing the famous quality of Nvidia and ATI drivers on all platforms, that they were always updated to the latest release on Windows. Your computer would effectively be broken quite often.

Edited 2010-06-19 05:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

Option 1: "Rolling-release" distros *are* essentially upgrading portions of the OS as you upgrade apps, etc... it just comes pouring down the wire and stability suffers, as a result.

Option 2: "Testing" repositories are not a solution at all, because a) not every app has one, and b) you generally have to manually set up the repository for each one (that might, possibly, maybe, happen to be available).

So, Option 1 is the equivalent of having to continually install beta releases of Windows or OS X just to get the newer apps available. Option 2 is not particularly user friendly and it's incredibly spotty at best.

Neither of these options provide the previously mentioned easy of use in comparison to Windows or OS X. Heck, I think just about all the apps I currently use on OS X even check for their own updates and install them for you, upon approval, without me ever having to do a thing - and I never have to worry about the stability of the OS or that the core might be tampered with...

Remember, I never said that there weren't ways to possibly upgrade apps, but these kludges are simply not suitable in a modern desktop operating system. The OS and the applications should not be so tightly bound to one another and I think the main failing here is the way libraries and resources are handled by the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

I've yet to see a simple, easy-to-use, universal solution to upgrading apps on Linux.

apt-get install [package] works on most Debian based distros.

Most other distros have their version of this command and/or a GUI version.

Reply Parent Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Dude we all know about apt-get.

It comes with problems like users being unable to upgrade software until system dependency issues have been resolved. Updating an application should not require a major system update.

Reply Parent Score: 2

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

That really doesn't provide a solution to the previously mentioned issue afflicting Linux distros.

Reply Parent Score: 1

chris_l Member since:
2010-02-14

I've yet to see a simple, easy-to-use, universal solution to upgrading apps on Linux.

There is no so such animal for *ANY* OS


I'm talking about not having to upgrade your whole distro just to use the latest release of your favorite music player, etc...

This happens all the time.

"For example, if Ubuntu ships with OpenOffice.org 2.0.x, it will remain at OpenOffice.org 2.0.x for the entire 6-month release cycle, even if a later version gets released during this time. The Ubuntu team may apply important security fixes to 2.0.x, but any new features or non-security bugfixes will not be made available."

Bullshit. Under Fedora for instance just run "yum install blah" as root using su from a terminal.

If you don't have what the program needs, yum will download and install it for you.


Sure there are "backports" but lots of apps never get this treatment.

This is not normally an issue on Windows or Mac OS X.


That's because Windows or Mac OS X will require you to run out and spend $$$$ on the latest version of the OS, or buy a freaking new computer.

Don't agree? Try running the latest versions of either VLC or Firefox on Windows 98se for instance. There's quite frankly no reason that I can see for either of these programs to *NOT* run under Win98se except for the fact the the developers wanted to force people to upgrade for no real reason.


Reply Parent Score: 1

jtfolden Member since:
2005-08-12

There is no so such animal for *ANY* OS


Are you kidding? Virtually everything I install on my Mac is via simple DnD. Virtually every app I run has the ability to download updates and upgrade themselves. All of this going on without having to update the core of the OS every time to do so.



Bullshit.


That scenario is not Bullshit at all. It's quoted verbatim from Ubuntu documentation as an example.

That's because Windows or Mac OS X will require you to run out and spend $$$$ on the latest version of the OS, or buy a freaking new computer.

Don't agree? Try running the latest versions of either VLC or Firefox on Windows 98se for instance. There's quite frankly no reason that I can see for either of these programs to *NOT* run under Win98se except for the fact the the developers wanted to force people to upgrade for no real reason.


Oh, so the latest VLC and FireFox will install without any updates to the OS on Red Hat Linux 5.1, released in 1998?

"There's quite frankly no reason that I can see for either of these programs to *NOT* run under Red Hat Linux 5.1 except for the fact the the developers wanted to force people to upgrade for no real reason." LOL

I will gladly plunk down $99 every 2 years for OS X and not have to worry about installing a whole new version of the OS every 6 months just to have the latest apps. On top of that, I don't have to worry about an unsupported app installing dependencies that screw with the stability of the system.

Reply Parent Score: 2