In light of the many misunderstandings about Linux, software repositories and installation of packages, part one of this season’s Mandriva Linux 2006 review includes an extensive background article about it. It explains why the nature of Free Software leads to a more userfriendly software installation setup for Linux distributions in general, as compared to proprietary systems such as the current desktop market leader. The process is illustrated with Mandriva Linux tools. This first part of the Mandriva Linux 2006 review also contains information on the installation and benchmark figures against previous Mandriva/Mandrake products, amongst other things.
Mandriva 2006 Review and Linux Software Installation Background
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Great articles , well worth the read even if your an expert.
I know that there is a couple of thing missing ( from my own point of view ).
Advantages of the Linux software installation system :
– The entire system once all is done is entirely legal
– Its core is entirely Open Source
– There is no activation code or serial number to hide and remember.
– You own the final system , its not on rent for use.
– The software you get are full version that the developper could deliver at that time.
– The entire system once all is done is entirely legal
Unless you install commercial software without paying…
– Its core is entirely Open Source
Unless you use a non OSS userland…
– There is no activation code or serial number to hide and remember.
Unless you’re a good samaritan and buy your commercial software…
-bytecoder
“Unless you install commercial software without paying…”
Wich is the point your not getting an illegal system in the first place , Windows OEM will ship time limited software , install spyware , etc … … You have to install something illegal.
“Unless you use a non OSS userland…”
Thats why I wrote core … Nvidia and Ati and etc are not part of the core there a choice.
“Unless you’re a good samaritan and buy your commercial software… ”
Mandriva is Commercial , what you mean is proprietary and closed source software.
Wich is the point your not getting an illegal system in the first place , Windows OEM will ship time limited software , install spyware , etc … … You have to install something illegal.
What about those distros that ship with, e.g. mp3 support?
Thats why I wrote core … Nvidia and Ati and etc are not part of the core there a choice.
Define “core.”
Mandriva is Commercial , what you mean is proprietary and closed source software.
No, I’m talking about commercial software. It’s kind of hard to use free software illegally, ya know? If you have to pay for the actual software (and not the cd), there’s a good chance you shouldn’t be redistributing it and doing so would be illegal.
“What about those distros that ship with, e.g. mp3 support?”
MP3 support is not illegal when you paid for it. Its actually legal to use with any computer as almost all hardware makers ( read components used to build an entire computer system , aka the one your using right now ) have paid for its license.
“Define “core.” ”
That wich come without any modification , wich is the default sugested by those who respect Free and Open Source , that which is the base on wich everything is built.
“No, I’m talking about commercial software”
No , your talking about software distribution system , you mention store reseller as if they where not availaible for GNU/Linux distributions.
” It’s kind of hard to use free software illegally”
Break The GPL , install a Commercial closed source software you already stole on it … etc … Thats the point of Free ( as in freedom ) software , making it legal for anyone to use …
“ya know?”
Yes , I know , the same cannot be said for you 😉
” If you have to pay for the actual software (and not the cd), there’s a good chance you shouldn’t be redistributing it and doing so would be illegal.”
Its not as clear cut as that , but the gist of your comment ( as I clearly understand what you wrote and not whar is in your mind , so If I am wrong feel free to correct me ) , I take that no one pay or should pay for free software because you assume that free software mean at no cost and that the difference between commercial and Free software is only the cost. which is wrong.
You’re arguing about core philosophical beliefs, something that I’m not likely to change any time soon, and you probably wouldn’t either, which makes this discussion pointless. If you would like to talk about something, I suggest you use my stance that package managers (especially repository-based) suck.
-bytecoder
“You’re arguing about core philosophical beliefs”
I am discussing how I know you havent read and understood the article , and dont know the subject discussed by it , and how your trying to explain it true your own philosophical beliefs.
The article is an how things work , not a why is it the best method.
Um, it doesn’t matter if you buy or steal your commercial software, it still requires a registration/activation code…
Even commercial Unix software comes with these (they’re actually about 5 times longer, and you have to store them in a file).
Not quite. I purchased the Intel C compiler and the installation process installed everything in RPM form on my Mandriva workstation just dandily. Post install, it will ask for a license key, and if you don’t give it, the compiler will simply tell you to get one before you use it (and not work until you do). Sounds great to me.
This is probably the most misinformed article I have ever read. It is probably the only one on OSNews that I couldn’t stand to read after I got about a quarter through. First of all, he uses the windows non-repository based installation method to prove that package managers are good (wrong!). Next, he talks about how package managers are superior in that you can save yourself 2 seconds by using the built-in search instead of google. Finally, he seems to think that every piece of software under the sun is available in the repository, which is like saying a computer store has every single type of computer in the world.
-bytecoder
“This is probably the most misinformed article I have ever read.”
No 😉
“It is probably … I got about a quarter through. ”
Why ? because its in direct contradiction with what you are usualy spoon fed ? I think those article are devoid of any usual promotion and political comments and only one product self serving. There just providing clear and correct information. Wich is refreshing for a change.
“he uses the windows non-repository based installation method to prove that package managers are good (wrong!). ”
There is a legal , no cost , free ( as in Freedom ) windows repository based instalation method for normal users ? answer : No … ( feel free to offer your proof if you disagree ).
“he talks about how … instead of google.”
No , but I guess you did not fully read what whas written because your temper clouded your reading.
“he seems to think that every piece of software under the sun is available in the repository”
No mention of the such ( feel free to provide a direct quote ) he just mentionned of whats availiable in those repository.
“which is like saying a computer store has every single type of computer in the world.”
I know what I read and what you mentionned are two different things , I read it entirely and read its content , I did not try to invent content to put it down or decipher any hidden meanings , unlike what you did.
Sorry , I strongly disagree with your opinion.
Why ? because its in direct contradiction with what you are usualy spoon fed ? I think those article are devoid of any usual promotion and political comments and only one product self serving. There just providing clear and correct information. Wich is refreshing for a change.
No? I don’t know what you mean by “spoon fed,” considering I developed my beliefs on my own, and I certainly don’t know what your rant has to do with anything.
There is a legal , no cost , free ( as in Freedom ) windows repository based instalation method for normal users ? answer : No … ( feel free to offer your proof if you disagree ).
Why would anyone want one? The point I was trying to make is that package managers are ineffective and useless compared to other alternatives, e.g. self-contained packages that need no installation.
No mention of the such ( feel free to provide a direct quote ) he just mentionned of whats availiable in those repository.
So what does 10GB mean to the user? Basically, it means that any Free/Open Source software project that is even remotely interesting has been packaged.
Roughly translated, he’s saying that pretty much any software you could ever want is available.
I know what I read and what you mentionned are two different things , I read it entirely and read its content , I did not try to invent content to put it down or decipher any hidden meanings , unlike what you did.
Thanks… I really like it when people accuse me of things, especially since it’s so productive to this conversation
-bytecoder
” don’t know what you mean by “spoon fed,” ”
Thats what you hear the most so you believe it to be true.
“considering I developed my beliefs on my own”
That would be a problem , to build a consequential informed tought one as to actually listen to both side of an argument and discuss it with others at lenght.
” and I certainly don’t know what your rant has to do with anything. ”
I am not ranting , but then again must be anothe rthing you dont know what it means or understand.
“Why would anyone want one?”
I guess you did not read and understand what those article where discussing after all.
“The point I was trying to make is that package managers are ineffective and useless compared to other alternatives”
No , but its because you dont know fully your subject , repository add a layer of trust and of competence which you forget to account in.
“e.g. self-contained packages that need no installation. ”
Impossible , you have to download or buy or connect and install something. The problem also come when its time to upgrade or modify or optimized it.
” Roughly translated, he’s saying that pretty much any software you could ever want is available.”
Translation of english to english … read what is written not what you whant it to say.
“Thanks… I really like it when people accuse me of things”
Dont commit the deed if you dont whant to be effectively labbeled as such 😉
“especially since it’s so productive to this conversation
”
You might have had something constructive to say and I did not understood what you meant , written arguments can be interpreted differently then what whas originaly meant. In this case I got what you said and meant 😉
I guess I am going to agree to disagree with you.
“The point I was trying to make is that package managers are ineffective and useless compared to other alternatives”
No , but its because you dont know fully your subject , repository add a layer of trust and of competence which you forget to account in.
How can one trust anything from the internet? Why is this so-called “layer of trust” a good thing?
[i]
Impossible , you have to download or buy or connect and install something. The problem also come when its time to upgrade or modify or optimized it.
[i]
When I refer to install, I mean having to expand a given package into the system. It’s completely possible to have self-contained apps that act like files, can be managed as such, and can be run from any location.
-bytecoder
aRTee has been using Linux for a number of years now, and his website is a very useful resource for beginning linux users who would like to try the Mandriva flavor of linux.
Bytecoder, the only “self-contained packages that need no installation” that I can think of exist on the Mac and maybe to a lesser extent on the BeOS/Zeta where you can just drop a program anywhere and it will run.
Your argument that searching for self-contained packages via google is faster than using a package tool (or auto-compile tool in the gentoo and slackware distros) shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the package system works. Sure you won’t find every single package in the Mandriva repositories. Heck, you won’t necessarily find the latest, but there is a lot of software that is available and the system works great in practice.
Let’s say I want to set up my new system for DVD playback. I can install all the necessary programs in two steps:
1. add the PLF repository using http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/
2. open a terminal as root and type:
# urpmi.update -a
# urpmi mplayer libdvdcss2 xine-ui ogle ogle_gui vlc
It just plain ain’t that complicated.
Bytecoder, the only “self-contained packages that need no installation” that I can think of exist on the Mac and maybe to a lesser extent on the BeOS/Zeta where you can just drop a program anywhere and it will run.
They don’t exist in the pure form that I’m talking about, but nothing’s stopping somebody from inventing it.
Your argument that searching for self-contained packages via google is faster than using a package tool (or auto-compile tool in the gentoo and slackware distros) shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how the package system works. Sure you won’t find every single package in the Mandriva repositories. Heck, you won’t necessarily find the latest, but there is a lot of software that is available and the system works great in practice.
Except when the user needs something that’s not in the repository. When that happens, the whole system breaks down–it doesn’t matter how easy to use the package manager is if programs can’t be “installed” in a consistent manner. Among other things, self-contained apps have the benefit of being easy to understand, manage, and remove, along with being consistent. I should point out, however, that I’m also bundling the characteristic of no dependencies in with self-contained apps.
-bytecoder
“Except when the user needs something that’s not in the repository. When that happens, the whole system breaks down–it doesn’t matter how easy to use the package manager is if programs can’t be “installed” in a consistent manner. Among other things, self-contained apps have the benefit of being easy to understand, manage, and remove, along with being consistent. I should point out, however, that I’m also bundling the characteristic of no dependencies in with self-contained apps. ” -bytecoder
I will defer to your point here, only because I have chosen to install K3B, SuperKaramba and Ktorrent from source in order to get the latest versions, and in that sense, the RPM sytem had broken down. Mind you, a few ./configure,make,make install’s aint that bad to my way of thinking.
“Bytecoder, the only “self-contained packages that need no installation” that I can think of exist on the Mac and maybe to a lesser extent on the BeOS/Zeta where you can just drop a program anywhere and it will run.
They don’t exist in the pure form that I’m talking about, but nothing’s stopping somebody from inventing it.”
The Atari ST had lots of programs that were just a simple file that you could copy over to your hard drive and/or run straight from floppy disk. No installation required. But then it didn’t have the variety of libraries that Linux or Windows has. Same thing with the Amiga. Though of course it wasn’t universal, not all programs were like that.
The idea of having to google for all your software is stupid though. The reason I say this…. try downloading anything for windows… for example, mame32, you have to have a fileplanet account to download it. More and more things are becoming like that too. Try downloading a game demo. Same thing. It’s ridiculous.
The idea of having to google for all your software is stupid though. The reason I say this…. try downloading anything for windows… for example, mame32, you have to have a fileplanet account to download it. More and more things are becoming like that too. Try downloading a game demo. Same thing. It’s ridiculous.
Have you ever heard of “freshmeat.org”? Obviously some sort of online index could be implemented, but an advantage of this is that the user goes to the homepage before running the program.
-bytecoder
Have you ever heard of “freshmeat.org”? Obviously some sort of online index could be implemented, but an advantage of this is that the user goes to the homepage before running the program.
-bytecoder
Of course I’ve heard of freshmeat.org, if you really want to go to a homepage before running the program, it’s real simple, just put inside the package manager a link to the homepage so that the person can check out the program. Some software already does this in synaptic, but it’s not universal.
Then you just end up reimplementing an already present system; congratulations, you win the worst software designer of the year award! Joking aside, reimplementation is a very good sign you need to redesign something.
-bytecoder
{Except when the user needs something that’s not in the repository.}
Except that I have never know that to happen.
Think 17000+ packages. 17 THOUSAND packages.
That is one hell of a lot of coverage.
Riiight, and ALL those packages have the version that you need.
Riiight, and ALL those packages have the version that you need.
Exactly ! That’s what zealots have a hard time understanding with package managers.
The package manager is there to PROTECT the NOVICE user !
The very day you need sth outside of the repository, that means you want to become an advanced user.
For example, trying the latest dev version of sth, or an obscure niche app.
I never saw an average user lacking a package.
The package manager can’t be compared to anything on Windows, because it actually protect the user, which is never the case in Windows, where you can install no matter what. Sometimes, a Windows installer will try a hack and bail out if a version of sth is not up to date, but that’s all.
In Linux distros, the package manager will prevent you from even installing an app, if it can’t handle it.
Of course, you have ways to bypass it if you are smarter than the package manager. But you actually have to be smarter, and I think that’s what is frustrating so much zealots : they realise they were not so smart, and find themselves stuck. So, as they can’t blame themselves (they are so smart), they blame the package manager which tried to protect them.
That’s why you won’t see people blaming the package manager, cite which app they tried to install, because they would look like trolls and morons. Because, most of them tried to install things that were already in the package manager, or tried installing some obscure niche app (which require not being a newbie to be installed).
I’m pretty convinced of all that, specially when the only problem zealots can find against package management is : what if it is not in the repository. The answer is simple enough : ask your distro provider or the app provider for a package.
The answer is simple enough : ask your distro provider or the app provider for a package.
Sure, and they of course will drop all the rest of their present affairs and devote their attention to me 🙂
I’ve had that trouble myself. My distro only had Gimp 2.0 while I wanted to install 2.2. I asked them to no avail. So the repo system failed for me in this case. “Change your distro” is not the answer.
BTW you seem to somehow infer that I deny usefulness of repositories as such. That’s not the case. The repos have their place and they are a great convenience for the user. At least for the core system software, they are clearly superior to the Windows’ auto update system. But they do have their limitations: 1) inherent security of all software from repositories (EDIT: compared to the upstream versions) is a myth; 2) they don’t contain ALL software that is produced, and the software they do contain does not always have the version a user needs.
Edited 2005-11-07 16:41
Sure, and they of course will drop all the rest of their present affairs and devote their attention to me 🙂
Yes, an end user distro, for which you paid, provides support. It’s not news, especially for Mandriva.
I’ve had that trouble myself. My distro only had Gimp 2.0 while I wanted to install 2.2. I asked them to no avail.
You mean that to this day, they still do not have Gimp 2.2 ? Anyway, this has nothing to do with a flaw in the repos system. It still protects you from bad packages. You surely can find a non-official package, but you lose the safety of your distro provider.
So the repo system failed for me in this case. “Change your distro” is not the answer.
No it didn’t, the only thing I see that failed here is your patience. Wait patiently is the answer. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. A bleeding edge distro is not the same as an average user distro. Most distro even allow you to access their bleeding edge repos, but they warn you that you are no longer safe from broken packages, and must know what you are doing. So the repos is not at fault, your thirst for bleeding edge is.
But they do have their limitations:
1) inherent security of all software from repositories (EDIT: compared to the upstream versions) is a myth; 2) they don’t contain ALL software that is produced, and the software they do contain does not always have the version a user needs.
Your point 1 is present in non-repo install too. But worse, perhaps it’s a myth, but for now it’s a fact. I already provided examples of people who tried to infect repository, they were detected and repelled.
So to this day, what you call a myth is still a fact.
In point 2, you make the mistake of “version a user needs”, when you really think “bleeding edge version”.
Being what it is, in FOSS, the latest version is (nearly) always the best with the most features. But it is bleeding edge and not always stable (not that it crashes, but API or calling arguments can change for example). Anyway, the version the user need will make its way to the distro one day.
Distro try to have a balance between stable and bleeding edge. When you master Linux more, you can then try bleeding edge distro, that still use repos, and can have the latest software version the day it’s released (like mine or gentoo). We still use repos though, but our packages use the upstream to get the software.
So the repos never fail.
The only drawback of repos is that they have to be maintained.
{ALL those packages have the version that you need}.
So far they have been, and I have about 1400 packages installed.
That is a lot of software. Most of it comes stright off the distro install CD.
It is also about 50 times more functional “out-of-the-box” than any Windows OS install I have ever done.
I use KANOTIX – live CD with HD install, installs about 1350 packages – installs from scratch in about 15 minutes and just one re-boot – no additional drivers or application CDs required – guaranteed free of malware – does not require registration or activation or CD keys typed in – has no known viruses “in the wild” and can be used safely on the internet “out-of-the-box” – and as the thread topic points out is supported via Debian repositories with an additional 15000+ packages on line, easily searchable, available from one easy-to-use interface and guaranteed free of malware.
Practically speaking, the MDV media contain just about every app I’ve ever needed under Linux. I currently have precisely two things I had to install from a tarball; mimms (an mms ripper I used one time) and shntool.
{First of all, he uses the windows non-repository based installation method to prove that package managers are good (wrong!).}
Not wrong. Package managers are good. One-stop, easy install, guaranteed free of malware. What is not to like?
{Next, he talks about how package managers are superior in that you can save yourself 2 seconds by using the built-in search instead of google.}
Searching for Windows software on Google is a bit like reading through the “contact” ads in a paper – there is an outside chance that some might be genuine, but mostly what is on offer is just rip-off or worse.
{Finally, he seems to think that every piece of software under the sun is available in the repository}
17,000+ packages in Debian repositories. Try to name a type of software that isn’t available.
One of the most overlooked features of package managers is that they tend to maintain a database not only of the packages, but features in the packages.
That is to say, if you find a script somewhere that calls some program/data file you’ve never heard of, you can ask the package manager if it knows of a package the provides said program.
“guaranteed free of malware”
Do you really think that all packages in the repository has undergone security audit by the packagers? DO you think they have time to check the code line-by-line? You’re seriously misinformed then. I could easily sneak malware in 100 packages and nobody would notice. In most cases, you have to TRUST upstream anyway, so it’s no different from the case when I download software from the developer’s site.
Do you really think that all packages in the repository has undergone security audit by the packagers?
No, but the fact is that they all come from the same developers, that they pass through lots of distro, that a lot of companies do security audits on lots of these software, and all that thanks to 2 things : GPL and source code available. So in the end, it’s still far better than any closed source app. Apart for experiment (gcc hack), I still never heard of any open source software with malware.
DO you think they have time to check the code line-by-line? You’re seriously misinformed then. I could easily sneak malware in 100 packages and nobody would notice
You are plain wrong. Your zealotry is not reality. The fact is that you could not do that with official repositories. Taking Mandriva, you would have to sneak in the new package, then manage to create a MD5 and SHA1 (think it’s SHA1) for all the packages, which is already hard to defeat. But you would have to infect all the repositories too. Some people already tried what you talk about for some distro, and it was quickly detected. So, for someone like you that does not even understand the power of the Linux distro repositories, that don’t even know how they work, I can confidently say we have nothing to fear from you.
The only repositories you would have a chance of infecting are the one from easyrpmi, which are not signed or have no MD5.
In most cases, you have to TRUST upstream anyway, so it’s no different from the case when I download software from the developer’s site.
WRONG ! Trusting ONE upstream you got the system from (Mandriva) is not comparable with trusting any random provider on the internet. There is a reason why distro don’t always provide the latest version of packages, but you could not understand that.
No, but the fact is that they all come from the same developers
yes they do by definition, whether in a repository or not 🙂
that they pass through lots of distro
…that also do not analyse most of the software for security that closely, because it is a really daunting task. That slightly increases coverage though, because different distro have different specialization. But no one of them does comprehensive analysis of all software.
that a lot of companies do security audits on lots of these software
on a limited set of software – mostly core one
and all that thanks to 2 things : GPL and source code available
which are a given whether or not an app is in a repository 🙂
So in the end, it’s still far better than any closed source app.
who spoke about closed source, buddy? 🙂
I still never heard of any open source software with malware.
That IS the truth! And this is true not because of repos, but because of the availability of the source code.
The fact is that you could not do that with official repositories. Taking Mandriva, you would have to sneak in the new package, then manage to create a MD5 and SHA1 (think it’s SHA1) for all the packages, which is already hard to defeat.
Hey, and why do I have to do that with repositories? I’ll infect source that all repositories take. So that you could receive your malware properly signed 🙂
WRONG ! Trusting ONE upstream you got the system from (Mandriva) is not comparable with trusting any random provider on the internet.
Dude, this provider IS the upstream! By definition. When a distro packages an app it hasn’t thouroughly checked for security (which, as I said before, is the case for the most part of 17000 Mandriva packages), it means that they trust the author. And by installing this app from a repo, you implicitly trust him/her, too!
Oh, and why you are calling me a zealot is beyond me. Unless, of course, you define zealot as “having a different opinion on the general usefulness of repositories” 🙂
{Do you really think that all packages in the repository has undergone security audit by the packagers? DO you think they have time to check the code line-by-line? You’re seriously misinformed then. I could easily sneak malware in 100 packages and nobody would notice. In most cases, you have to TRUST upstream anyway, so it’s no different from the case when I download software from the developer’s site.}
ROFLMAO.
The security audit is done in the fact that the packages are open source.
Being open source, programmers who did not author the code get to see the code, and having seen it they still use the package.
It is not possible to sneak malware in. To put a package in a repository it has to be open source. As soon as anyone used the package and had a bad experience with it there would be complaint, the source would be examined, your malware-containing package would be out of the repository and you would never be allowed to submit anything ever again.
You seriously misunderstand open source and the way in which repositories work.
Guaranteed free of malware.
in my opinion,
urpmi sucks cock
wow mandrake seems to have changed a lot. i remember back in the day (version 7.2)… maybe i should give it a try again. arch is starting to get boring.
Forgot to close that i tag…
Impossible , you have to download or buy or connect and install something. The problem also come when its time to upgrade or modify or optimized it.
When I refer to install, I mean having to expand a given package into the system. It’s completely possible to have self-contained apps that act like files, can be managed as such, and can be run from any location.
-bytecoder
From the article: “freaked out-of-its-mind high-on-crack penguin from Mdv05LE”
Nice! aRTee has a great sense of humour!
“First of all, he uses the windows non-repository based installation method to prove that package managers are good (wrong!).” -bytecoder
No, what the author said was that many novice users misunderstand how linux works and try to install software as they would in Windows. He didn’t comment at all on whether the system in Windows works.
Obviously, in a commercial software model, such that is used in the Windows world, stand alone packages make more sense. I should mention that windows DID standardize on a package manager too. It’s called the Microsoft Windows Installer engine and it acts a lot like a linux package manager. The only difference is that Windows “packages” (.msi files) come on install CDs distributed by 3rd party companies.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;292539
Any type of package manager (aka installer) is bad, in my opinion. There’s no reason I should have to “install” an application to run it. The main reason applications have to be merged into the base system is mainly out of lack of technology (way back when) and laziness (now).
-bytecoder
Not really. The “single object” metaphor works okay for a small, simple application. It really doesn’t scale to a larger level, though. What do you do with shared libraries used by many apps? There’s zillions of these on Linux, and you certainly don’t want to install them all by default. What about other forms of ‘shared’ data? man pages, for instance. I don’t like the idea of every app on my system being a single compounded object. It’s an unnecessary layer of abstraction given that I don’t have to deal with the separate files at all except when I _want_ to, and when I want to deal with them, I want them to be there, not mushed together into one object.
What do you do with shared libraries used by many apps? There’s zillions of these on Linux, and you certainly don’t want to install them all by default.
Include commonly use shared libraries with the OS itself. Anything uncommon enough to not be bundled with the OS can be included with the application itself.
What about other forms of ‘shared’ data? man pages, for instance.
How are help files ‘shared’?
I don’t like the idea of every app on my system being a single compounded object. It’s an unnecessary layer of abstraction given that I don’t have to deal with the separate files at all except when I _want_ to, and when I want to deal with them, I want them to be there, not mushed together into one object.
Is there a reason you’re assuming an application’s contents couldn’t be viewed and modified like a folder?
-bytecoder
That approach to shared files leaves a huge gap for stuff used by several apps but not used by typical users.
Help files are ‘shared’ because it’s typically not the _app_ that accesses them, but an external app. The manpage for urpmi isn’t there for urpmi’s benefit but for man’s benefit, but it makes sense to ship it as part of urpmi. Also, you could potentially use several different apps to read a man page (man, yelp, even a browser).
If you’re going to expose the inside of the package, what’s the point of obscuring it in any case? When you work with a package management system the app is already effectively abstracted to the level of a single object; I run ‘urpmi rhythmbox’, ‘rpm -q rhythmbox’, ‘urpme rhythmbox’ etc. I’m effectively interacting with a single object called rhythmbox. The fact that behind the scenes urpmi / rpm is interpreting this as the name of a package which contains several files doesn’t really matter to me; I’m working with a single object. So from this point of view I don’t quite see the benefit of your approach.
Help files are ‘shared’ because it’s typically not the _app_ that accesses them, but an external app. The manpage for urpmi isn’t there for urpmi’s benefit but for man’s benefit, but it makes sense to ship it as part of urpmi. Also, you could potentially use several different apps to read a man page (man, yelp, even a browser).
Ever heard of a Document-Oriented Interface? The help can be accessed from the file manager via right click, but it’s the same that can be accessed by the help menu.
If you’re going to expose the inside of the package, what’s the point of obscuring it in any case? When you work with a package management system the app is already effectively abstracted to the level of a single object; I run ‘urpmi rhythmbox’, ‘rpm -q rhythmbox’, ‘urpme rhythmbox’ etc. I’m effectively interacting with a single object called rhythmbox. The fact that behind the scenes urpmi / rpm is interpreting this as the name of a package which contains several files doesn’t really matter to me; I’m working with a single object. So from this point of view I don’t quite see the benefit of your approach.
This approach is simpler, less prone to breakage, and doesn’t invent a new program for every little thing. The file manager is the package manager–it requires no more thought to use than rearranging your files, and you know exactly where everything is it any given time.
-bytecoder
“This approach is simpler, less prone to breakage, and doesn’t invent a new program for every little thing. The file manager is the package manager–it requires no more thought to use than rearranging your files, and you know exactly where everything is it any given time.”
But as others have pointed out, it doesn’t solve the problem of software _retrieval_. And I believe a good repository based system is a lot nicer than “Google for everything”.
That’s what’s great about it–it only does one thing, and it does it well. Software retrieval can easily be handled by, e.g. an online index of applications, like freshmeat.net.
-bytecoder
Yes, that’s it. It’s because there is a way to do things without installing them…
Shall we go ahead and have web software only then? Or do you just propose we hide installations from the user?
Shall we go ahead and have web software only then?
Most certainly not.
Or do you just propose we hide installations from the user?
How about you just don’t have any installation at all? I think OS X already has this capability, but for some reason they still seem to use installers…
-bytecoder
“How about you just don’t have any installation at all? I think OS X already has this capability, but for some reason they still seem to use installers…” — bytecoder
Well, what the Mac does is make the application folder act like an alias for the application, giving the user the illusion that the program is a single file. This doesn’t avoid the need for an initial installation of the program, even if it’s as simple as unstuffing a disk image and setting user preferences.
One can’t just will a program onto a computer. One must “install” it somehow. For non distro specific installs in linux for commercial apps, autopackage has hope, but I find it to be a little rough around the edges yet. I love the idea of .package files. I really do. Until they mature, I’ll continue to use urpmi and for new new apps, source.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310598/
“Basically, it means that any Free/Open Source software project that is even remotely interesting has been packaged.”
Hey! Bite your tongue.
to the dependancy problems caused by lack of standardized libs. As far as desktop linux goes we wont see wide spread use of stand alone single file installers found in windows and mac. That is unlikely to happen unless everyone agrees on the same toolkit/libs (and the libs have a stable API (i.e. the API doesn’t change across versions))
Unfortunately no mainstream OS has perfect software management. WIndows software depends on the installer to play nice and provide a full uninstaller. Mac software can leave configuration files behind in hidden/unusual folders. Linux software depends on the repository to have the software you want and all the dependancies
Come on, I’m talking to you.
Asleep.
-bytecoder
This is the simplest solution. Just use rpmdrake to get synaptic, then use synaptic. Simple, best of both worlds.
I agree that debian and apt are pretty much foolproof, but have always had little niggles with pure debian installs – stuff like, making automount work properly. Mandriva has all that taken care of nicely, but yes, rpm had its dependency problems. For instance, I couldn’t get pythoncard to load properly, wxpython was there but apparently invisible to the rpm manager, rebuilding the database didn’t seem to help…now, though, if you can get apt working with rpm, its a great distro.
I’ve noticed when this author writes a review on Mandriva software it’s always very detailed both with information for novice and experienced users as well providing several screenshots. Even though this is only part 1 of his review and I’m not a Mandriva user I enjoyed reading it.
It’s been a month since Mandriva released 2006, and I am still not able to download ISO images so i can burn my own CD’s an DVD’s with the free edition.
Where are they?
How much time will we have to wait?
That’s the reason why i switched from Mandriva to Fedora, they provide ISO images to download the same day a new version is released.
It’ll be later this month, probably within two weeks.
So what does that mean ? does it means that suspend / hibernate etc works out of box ? What about NVIDIA drivers ?
How about system stability ?
I’m not a Linux user, just an hobbyist programmer on w2k. There is a point I am still not understanding on Linux. How do I distribute the free/gratis apps I wrote?
{How do I distribute the free/gratis apps I wrote?}
For Debian repositories, you would start here:
http://www.us.debian.org/devel/