Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 16:12 UTC
Window Managers In the final years of my high school career, more concerned with going out and drinking three times a week than with actually doing anything meaningful at my supposedly posh gymnasium, I rediscovered my love for computing - a love lost during the onset of aforementioned going out and drinking. Realising I would hit university soon, I saved up 2000 guilders, ordered the parts for a brand-new computer, and thanks to this then state-of-the-art computer, old flames were rekindled. Since this pun is burning a hole in my pocket - it was an enlightening experience.
Thread beginning with comment 546190
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Linux Mint
by No it isnt on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 23:00 UTC in reply to "Linux Mint"
No it isnt
Member since:

You don't want a desktop environment distributed as a single binary or a single installer. Yes, I see you believe you do, but you don't. E17 is a window manager, but also a collection of libraries that may or may not be installed before you get "E17". It needs system level integration, and you'll get that soon enough. Just be patient.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Linux Mint
by m0ns0on on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 23:05 in reply to "RE: Linux Mint"
m0ns0on Member since:

Yes I do want it, and I *could* have gotten it ;) Even if it would be a GUI to compile the whole thing (and later, uninstall if possible) - I would want a GUI.

If you are telling me that it's not possible to install a framework and a set of apps with an installer then you must be relatively new to computers. An installer is a solution to the exact problem I'm having, and it's being done every day on every platform other than *nix systems (well, even *nix systems I'd imagine, even though most Linux developers prefer other people package for them).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Linux Mint
by No it isnt on Sat 22nd Dec 2012 23:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Linux Mint"
No it isnt Member since:

I'm not telling you it's impossible, the problem is it's going to be a mess of incompatible libraries installed in various locations. Library hell.

Installers are fine for games and smaller application suites. It's not a solution to your problem, which is impatience. There's no installer for E17, so it doesn't solve the problem of there being no packages either.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Linux Mint
by rklrkl on Sun 23rd Dec 2012 13:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Linux Mint"
rklrkl Member since:

> If you are telling me that it's not possible to install a framework and a set of apps with an installer then you must be relatively new to computers.

Of course, it's "possible", but on Linux platforms it's highly "undesirable". This is because, unlike Windows, it actually has a common installer (rpm or dpkg) and repo system (yum or apt-get) already, so to be frank, anyone writing their own installer for Linux binaries should be taken out around the back and whipped to within an inch of their lives :-)

What devs need to do - and they often epicly fail at this - is to actually make it easier for the distro maintainers to build an RPM/.deb/whatever out of their source code. This means making sure that everything installs into the appropriate trees, including necessary package config files (e.g. .spec files for RPM) and so on.

Having said all this, it does highlight one of the majorly broken issues of package installation on Linux - there needs to be *one* binary package format and *one* repo format before this mess ever gets properly cleared up.

It would also be nice if everyone agreed the same install trees too - if all of the above happened, we might see the day where everything in Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentoS/RHEL and openSuSE is completely interoperable/installable. Sadly, the chaos we're in doesn't look like sorting itself out any time soon.

It should be noted that Windows is actually worse mess - no central repo across all apps (Windows Update is MS products only, which is ludicrous) and there are literally hundreds of different installers written out there which have wildly variable behaviour.

Custom binary installers are *not* the way to go and yet Windows people seem to happy to use them. The problem with those installers is there's often no easy way to tell what or where they've installed or if they've left anything behind on uninstallation (which they often do). It's exactly why Windows PCs get into a mess as they go through installations and uninstallations of third-party software.

Reply Parent Score: 4