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 451067
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Symptom of a Wider Problem
by Soulbender on Thu 25th Nov 2010 00:22 UTC in reply to "Symptom of a Wider Problem"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

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.


And what would be the better alternative? Lke Windows where there are 5 billion installer systems, few companies provide automatic updates and those who do all use their own update system?

Reply Parent Score: 6

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Read what Ubuntu is proposing here and you'll realise that the status quo is not acceptable. They know there is a massive problem where applications are tied to a particular distribution version, meaning that you need to upgrade every six months if you want to get a new application version. That is just plain stupid.

The Windows system at least provides the means to install a wide variety of applications, and you can install Open Office on a nine year old system in XP that you can't do with any Linux distribution. What it lacks is a sane update and remote installation mechanism, but that's because software installation on Windows has existed for a very long time.

Scale this up for Ubuntu and they're going to have to maintain an extremely long list of backports, the quality of which will inevitably be compromised. Where applications are concerned that just shows you that it's the developers and users who should be responsible for maintaining and installing the software that they want to use.

Eventually they will end up realising this after another ten years maybe, but until they do they'll have to jump throuhg hoops such as just where they will draw the line as to what they will update in a distribution and what should be kept static.

Edited 2010-11-25 13:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

silix Member since:
2006-03-01

And what would be the better alternative? Lke Windows where there are 5 billion installer systems
who cares whether different applications use different installers if:
- they vary in flexibility and functionality ( eg some operate via scripts, some can install the Application on a per component basis) but all of them basically do the same thing, extract the application files to the installation folder, and set some registry keys
- the underlying system (as applications and installers are concerned) is for all intents and purposes the very same (thus, a unified platform compatible with itself across releases) for over a decade - thus allowing nearly any combination of <<arbitrary application for "windows">> and <<arbitrary windows version>> to work

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"And what would be the better alternative? Lke Windows where there are 5 billion installer systems
who cares whether different applications use different installers if: - they vary in flexibility and functionality ( eg some operate via scripts, some can install the Application on a per component basis) but all of them basically do the same thing, extract the application files to the installation folder, and set some registry keys - the underlying system (as applications and installers are concerned) is for all intents and purposes the very same (thus, a unified platform compatible with itself across releases) for over a decade - thus allowing nearly any combination of and to work "

Scenario: You are presented with two systems with equivalent functionality: Office suite, multimedia, graphics applications (such as photo management, raster & vector graphics editors), CD/DVD burner, Internet suite (email, IM, browser), PIM, etc

If you have one which is a Windows system that is "stale" ... hasn't been touched in a couple of years ... and the other a Linux system which is also stale (also hasn't been touched in a couple of years) ... and you are asked to bring them both right up to date without losing any user data ... it is absolutely a given that the Linux system will be done in less than a quarter of the time of the Windows system.

That is a reason to care.

Edited 2010-11-26 02:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

And what would be the better alternative? Lke Windows where there are 5 billion installer systems, few companies provide automatic updates and those who do all use their own update system?

The App bundles of Mac OS X is in my opinion the best compromise to date for installing new software easily and removing it without leaving junk in system folders.

Updating is an issue, though. Apple should provide a standard update procedure, allowing third-party software to be updated along with system packages through the Apple Software Updater tool.

But looking at how much they care about their users keeping their system up to date, I wonder if this is going to happen before the only way to install and update software on a mac is via a "Mac Store" using Apple's repositories, effectively making the replacement of ASU able to update all software.

Edited 2010-11-25 20:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The App bundles of Mac OS X is in my opinion the best compromise to date for installing new software easily and removing it without leaving junk in system folders.

Superficially the OS X system looks great....until people actually start developing real applications on OS X that have shared, logical dependencies on one another.

Reply Parent Score: 3