Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Nov 2010 17:58 UTC, submitted by visitor
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu After announcing the move to Unity, and the eventual move to Wayland further down the line (someday one day perhaps eventually maybe once when unicorns roam the earth), Ubuntu is announcing yet another major change, this time in its release policy. While they're not moving to a rolling release as some websites are claiming, they will update components and applications more often.
Thread beginning with comment 451016
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Symptom of a Wider Problem
by fretinator on Wed 24th Nov 2010 18:32 UTC in reply to "Symptom of a Wider Problem"
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is just treating the symptoms of a wider problem in that Linux distributions don't have a sane software installation method for non-core distribution applications.


So you're telling me the Windows way of maintaining 3rd party programs is BETTER than the repository method used by Suse, Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, etc.

That sir is Moo - as in Udder Nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 6

_Nine_ Member since:
2010-10-13

What's your definition of maintaining? I think he's referring to straight-up installation. You want the new Firefox? Go to firefox.org and download it. You don't have to wait for your flavor of distro to roll it out via the repo. And you don't often have to worry that any prereqs for the app are going to break your other apps, just as it's rare for a Windows Update to break things. Updates and service packs might break custom or in-house enterprise apps, but i don't think it's an issue most general users face.

Reply Parent Score: 9

NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

If you want chrome on ubuntu for example you can get the deb from google, double click on it and it will install and automatically hook up with apt so that you get automatic updates (unlike in windows where a lot of apps have their own update application, I have like 5 running now: "adobe updater", "apple software update" etc). Is that really much more difficult than running a installer in windows?

Mozilla prefers to have the distros package their own builds, but they could have it working in a similar way if they wanted to, you can't blame it on linux that they don't.

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

So you're telling me the Windows way of maintaining 3rd party programs is BETTER than the repository method used by Suse, Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, etc.

Well let's look at the amount of applications that you can install on Windows and the fact that you can install Open Office on a nine year old OS in Windows XP but not on a nine year old Linux distribution.

The only thing that Windows lacks is a means for applications to have their own update repositories and systems.

That sir is Moo - as in Udder Nonsense.

Well you can call me sir all you like, but no it isn't, unless of course your goal is to make it as difficult as possible for users to get updated versions of applications and for developers to get those applications to users.

The reason why Ubuntu is looking at this approach of providing continually updated applications is because the 'better' way you describe really isn't.

Edited 2010-11-25 13:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

"Well let's look at the amount of applications that you can install on Windows and the fact that you can install Open Office on a nine year old OS in Windows XP but not on a nine year old Linux distribution.

The only thing that Windows lacks is a means for applications to have their own update repositories and systems."


You forgot that windows development pretty much stagnated for some years before MS released Vista in late 2006. And vista sucked. Hence a lot of people still use XP. How many people do you think are still using a 9 year old Linux distro on a desktop?

And besides, XP has recieved 3 service packs nad hundereds of updates over the years. Do you think a pre-SP1 XP from 9 years ago would actually run modern software?

"Well you can call me sir all you like, but no it isn't, unless of course your goal is to make it as difficult as possible for users to get updated versions of applications and for developers to get those applications to users.

The reason why Ubuntu is looking at this approach of providing continually updated applications is because the 'better' way you describe really isn't."


I disagree. Having a central package management system is far superior to having 100 different installer and updater applications. How is that "as difficult as possible"?

The problem is that a lot of developers leaves it to the distros to make packages rather than making their own.

Edited 2010-11-25 18:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2