Adobe, IBM, Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Novell, RealNetworks and Red Hat are all backing the new Linux standards effort led by the Free Standards Group. The nonprofit organisation plans to marshal their resources to form standards for key components of Linux desktop software, including libraries, application runtime and install time. The group said Monday that it will encourage software developers to use its guidelines when building programs for Linux as part of its Linux Standard Base project.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
(If you don't see it as a problem, try getting the new Gnumeric release when it comes out, without using some 'unstable' package repository. Not easy, eh?)
Why not wait until the distribution has added it to their repository and have the new stuff tested a little bit, before you yourself clumsilly destroy your setup with the latest and greatest?
Installing Autopackage software is like Russian Roulette. No way on earth that an Autopackage binary blob can play nicely with each and every intricacy of all the GNU/Linux based OSes out there. I trust on the software management by the distribution.
Plus, I really, really, really hate the idea of having to trawl the net and download each and every piece of software I want to use and then afterward have to click each and every piece after I've downloaded them and then having to answer the same stupid questions over and over again. Click -> next -> next -> next times 1,000,000.
Repository-based and (graphic) package-manager accessible software is superior to any installshield solution.
Member since:You've just supported my argument even more. Why should users have to "wait for it to appear in the distro"? In many cases, a new major release of a software package fixes bugs and problems in earlier releases. And now you're saying, users shouldn't have easy access to those bugfixed releases?
That they should have to wait for it to get into their "repositories"? Or download the source (and all the dependencies) and build by hand? Or poke around for unstable repositories that bring in their own problems?
All to fix a bug? It's insane.
And if you hate the idea of 'trawling' the net for software, ask your distro to collect together Autopackages of software into one place, so you don't have to go hunting. That also leads to a MASSIVE reduction in duplicated effort.
Right now, when a security issue is discovered in FooApp, hundreds of developers for hundreds of distros scramble to patch, rebuild and distribute the exact same fix over the myriad of distros. If there was an Autopackage for FooApp, distro vendors could simply grab that and push it out to end-users.
If you look around forums on the Net, one of the most common problems Linux newcomers grumble about is software installation. They see FooApp, go to the site, and just want to download and run a program. But instead they have to go through the massive somersaults mentioned above, or wait five months for it to appear in their next distro release.
Do you think that's acceptable? Do you not think we, as a community, should be doing something to get Linux out of its 5~% market share, and going upwards?
Software installation under Linux is fiendishly messy, and projects like Autopackage could solve it -- with you STILL having your repositories if you wanted them.
Member since:2005-08-19
Installing Autopackage software is like Russian Roulette. No way on earth that an Autopackage binary blob can play nicely with each and every intricacy of all the GNU/Linux based OSes out there.
It would work if distributors collaborated with the Autopackage developers. What would not work is having the Autopackage developers trying to guess at the intricacies of many distributions.
I trust on the software management by the distribution.
That promotes duplicated effort and stifles creativity. It's harder to create a new distribution when you have to set up your own repository. Even if you counter this point by saying that a new distribution could be based off an existing one, that existing one is still duplicating effort; therefore, the derived distributions' package selections are constrained. Distributors ought to be specifying distribution-specific details, not repeating the entire packaging process.
Plus, I really, really, really hate the idea of having to trawl the net and download each and every piece of software I want to use and then afterward have to click each and every piece after I've downloaded them and then having to answer the same stupid questions over and over again. Click -> next -> next -> next times 1,000,000.
Repository-based and (graphic) package-manager accessible software is superior to any installshield solution.
I agree wholeheartedly. Remember that this is a separate issue from Autopackage; there is no reason why we couldn't have one distribution-neutral Autopackage repository. This would also make it easier for new software to be published, particularly so if the developer is new to Linux.
Member since:
Let's have a nice, sane packaging format first that allows people to install what they want, when they want.
Currently, to get the latest software, people need to build from source or use 'unstable' repositories and pull in dependencies or find some RPM for Mandriva that might work on SUSE and and and...
Let's get using Autopackage (www.autopackage.org) and make new programs double-click easy install.
(If you don't see it as a problem, try getting the new Gnumeric release when it comes out, without using some 'unstable' package repository. Not easy, eh?)