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 451118
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Symptom of a Wider Problem
by segedunum on Thu 25th Nov 2010 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Symptom of a Wider Problem"
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

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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?

People still use XP because there is a large, stagnant installed base, especially in businesses, who can't and won't upgrade as fast as some think they should. A nine year old Linux distribution should be so lucky, and the reason why people don't use one that old now is simply because few want to run Linux.

The rest of your comment are unrelated criticisms of XP and I don't see them as relevant.

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"?

Because people want to upgrade their applications, get new versions and actually keep their system relevant to the work that they want to do. Upgrading it every six months to do that is just plain stupid, hence why Ubuntu is looking at doing this.

Unfortunately, trying to do it through a central repository system is a gross duplication of manpower and resources where they will have to backport to each and every single release and there will inevitably be a delay until new applications appear. They'll also have to work out how long they will provide backports for. Most upstream developers refuse to support many distribution packages as well.

It's swings and roundabouts, pros and cons, and simply making a sweeping statement that a central repository system is the best way is just nonsense. It isn't. There are just glaring disadvantages that people paint over.

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

Chicken and egg. There is no sane installation and configuration system for third-party software in any Linux distribution that doesn't interfere with the distribution itself. A package management system isn't enough. When someone has come up with one they have been consistently told that they're stupid.

Look at how easy it is to configure MySQL through a configuration wizard on Windows versus the hoops you jump through when you install on Linux. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Reply Parent Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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 actually OpenOffice 3 runs on Win2k SP2 or greater. But yes just about everything runs on XP SP2 and SP2 came out in 2004.


I disagree. Having a central package management system is far superior to having 100 different installer and updater applications.


You can have a single installation and updating service without having a bunch OS/application interdependencies. See the iphone as an example.


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

Oh so it is the fault of developers now. Is it the fault of developers when a distro breaks a program with a system update? Leaving it distro package managers is how (open source) developers deal with the mess. Some don't have the time and others simply don't want to waste it testing and packaging.

Reply Parent Score: 2