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 451143
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 Neolander on Thu 25th Nov 2010 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Symptom of a Wider Problem"
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

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

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.

It is based on the assumption that most non-system applications, developped independently from each other, don't have such dependencies on each others. That Photoshop does not depend on Office to work, that Pro Tools does not depend on Corel Painter, etc...

This assumption works very well on the desktop, as long we don't have a lot of apps depending on several hundreds of MB of common non-system libs, in which case sharing is best.

So...
-The set of system libraries must address all common needs
-Developers must use it.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Edited 2010-11-26 05:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2