Re: Precompiled Binary Package problem
: This is a huge problem with current base of Linux users.
: Shit is way too easy to do.
Depends on your purpose.
Is your purpose to use the system, or to dick with it?
For those who want a hobby machine to dick with, teach them code, learn UNIX guru tricks, undertand protocols and other essential god-like sysadmin skills and abilities, then a package manager only helps them to create custom packages to install on other machines that they manage.
For those who only want to use the sytstem to do other kinds of work (like word processing, code development, mail/news and web surfing), binary package managers make them more productive.
: At the same time, you have unreasonably high expectations
: for the software installed this way. You expect it to
: WORK! Right away! And provide you with the same features
: that binary packages for your other favorite operating
: system provide you with!
Whoever told you that is misinformed. I expect it to perform as the developer(s) advertised and if it doesn't, I ask them about it. If I'm not sure about a feature, or something seems a bit misleading in regards to what I need it to do, I ask them about it. Whenever a particular Linux program/app/library reaches a particular state of usability that is acceptable for my levels of productivity I switch. I save the kind of expectations you're talking about for my Macintosh machines. GNU/Open Source software simply is better for my health so I use it as much as possible.
: It's never finished, its written by random hackers, it
Whatever endeavour human beings continue to apply themselves to gets completed. It is just the way it works. It may never be finished (arguable, but beside the point right now), however it will certain achieve some state of usability and the Debian guys seem fairly organized to me.
: Some people don't care. I am among one of them. I like
: tinkering with broken undeveloped software. I compile it,
: find bugs, maybe fix them, but that's something I enjoy
: doing. I will try latest versions of sucky software to
: see if they improved.
Thanks for fixing the bugs, this is and documentation are probably the two single most important contributions anyone can make around here.
: [snipped some ranting]
: In my particular case I don't want to install all the
: damn mexican and bolivian and what the hell ever
: translations. The precompiled binary package will happily
: install those for you.
I think you're missing an important point here. Binary package managers weren't built for guys like you. They were built for people like me. People whose businesses and usability of the system rely on the ability to create manageable and maintainable systems quickly and easily without having to learn and understand what everything is and does before they do it. These people aren't expected to fix anything, they're expected to use the software, and report problems to people who enjoy fixing the bugs. No one said &amp;amp;amp;quot;timecop must use a binary package manager&amp;amp;amp;quot;. Binary package managers serve a purpose and, with the work of Conectiva, they just got better at serving that purpose.
: Suppose I want to install a new and stupid GUI program
: into a completely separate directory, so nuking it would
: be real simple? Again, I can't do that with a binary
Assuming your intent is nukability:
# dpkg -i new-and-stupid-GUI_0.0.1-1_i386.deb
&amp;amp;gt; play with the GUI here
# dpkg -r new-and-stupid-GUI
The new-and-stupid-GUI is no longer on your system. If your intent was to play with the source, then you could use the source packages, or get the tarball like you already do.
: Anyway. To make the long story short. Precompiled binary
: packages promote stupidity.
At the same they promote productivity for the majority of &amp;amp;amp;quot;users&amp;amp;amp;quot; of said packages. There will always be the need for providing source to people with special requirements. There will always be the need for tinkerers like yourself who help out with the bleeding edge development. These people also have some clue about what to do with the source once they have it. The truth is most people aren't qualified to use the source and I find it ludicrous to require people to learn to debug software before they can print a document for a system that is ultimately intended for the general mass market. An educated community is important to us all, and there are now, and will forever more be, many kinds of end users with many different requirements, desires, and backgrounds of education. Linux has done more in the past few years to address the demands of all these end users despite this lack of fully educated people, than any of the major proprietary vendors of OS and application software bar none.
In directly attacking the &amp;amp;amp;quot;stupidity&amp;amp;amp;quot; comment. We as a community can only work to be both productive, and educational. You have displayed with us here today a different example of &amp;amp;amp;quot;stupidity promotion&amp;amp;amp;quot;, not requiring people to learn how to separate their personal desires and intentions for using a system from the desires of all end users, promotes flame wars and other non-productive conversation wasting even more of those precious MBs that you feel are so scarce that you will spend hours of your time and ability to avoid some cruft or excess on your system. Nonetheless, you are part of this community and you have a voice that you are using to influence the future of our development. My intent is to challenge you to use that voice to speak for more than just your own small view of the Linux system and promote you becoming a more effective contributor. You are obviously intelligent enough to realize the costs of binary package managers, but have you stopped to think of the benefits to other people aside from yourself who require the productivity more than they do the MBs and education?
We are not saying &amp;amp;amp;quot;throw out the source&amp;amp;amp;quot;, and we are not saying &amp;amp;amp;quot;everyone should use a binary package manager&amp;amp;amp;quot;. We are saying binary package managers are useful to most of us, and they just became even more useful.
: Conectiva (who the hell would trust some brazilian
: linux distribution in the first place?
I can't help but you insult you over this one. :)
What egotistical, prejudicial, and moronic garbage have you been choosing to feed off of? What ignorance have you been living in that would allow you to assume that you have the judicial authority over the ability of the Brazilians to warrant a comment that has no basis or technical merit in reality? No one else on the planet was undertaking the kind of work and dedication that Conectiva displayed in making this gargantuan contribution to the usability and uniformity of the Linux system.
: All this &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot;Linux stability&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;quot; is bullshit
: when you take it to the desktop.
Who said Linux was stable at the desktop yet? It's not, and it's getting there quickly. Instability is not a threat to the Linux marketing campaign and no one who has really taken responsibility for the system is saying that it belongs at the desktop yet. GNU and Linux is expanding into more market segments than any other software system on the planet. I don't mind if it takes us a few more years to be the best at every one of them. The amazing part to me about the whole thing is that we will eventually be the best in every market.
: This shitty Linux software I mentioned earlier crashes so
: often it's almost impossible to use. The User Interface
: is not standard. Each developer thinks he has to reinvent
: the wheel when creating their application. For each new
: version you have to learn where that OK button will move
: to. Or what key you will have to press in the next
: version to close the dialog. etc.
Now you've taken you're complaints about bad software practices, lack of existing standards, usability testing and research, our commitment to &amp;amp;amp;quot;the user gets what the user wants&amp;amp;amp;quot;, and premature alpha quality software and tried to apply them to the binary package manager. The binary package manger makes it easier to distribute software. That's it. It doesn't care how complete or robust the software it's delivering is, it's just the messenger. As such, it has allowed us to distribute lots of unstable, buggy software (which may one day have a stable version) faster than ever. At the same time we can now distribute stable software faster than ever.
: Solution: Don't use Linux. Use Windows. Seriously
: consider your position, and think, if you really -NEED- a
: distribution like RedHat/Mundake/Conectiva, then why
: don't you just stay in Windows? It will provide you with
: much better application selection, much more stability,
1) Open Source/GNU software is good for my health. Windows and Microsoft is not. Besides, Open Source/GNU comment notwithstanding, in my professional opinion, Macintosh is doing a better job at providing systems for the desktop (I of course know that Mac is not Linux and the argument is roughly the same, but I wanted the opportunity to stick in my Mac plug).
2) There are some desktop applications that are usable enough for my levels of productivity which make it feasable to apply reason number 1.
3) You are assuming I want their desktop stuff. Most often I just want the easier to manage server stuff.
: and as an added benefit you will not have to reboot next
: time you want to play some game. After all, you are
: just installing linux to play Quake 666, right?
-- Michael --
Unified packages is an awesome idea!
The most exciting thing about this to me aside from being able to bounce and forth between distributions without having to relearn how the package management system works is the part about being a able to say what architectures and distributions your package is for.
Eventually I see this apt port growing into two very powerful new abilities.
The first is that as an independent developer who wants to make everything as easy as possible for my users, I want to provide binary packages that they can use.
Now, with the added RPM backend, if I only know how to make RPM packages, I could distribute an RPM for RedHat, and an RPM for Debian. I will still need to do my homework to make sure I install things in the proper places according to that distributions file system standard, but the cool thing is apt will eventually be able to do a lot of the hard work for me. Currently I see a limitation in dependency information. For instance, I'm not sure how easy it would be for apt to detect a dependency on my RPM is actually handled by a debian package, but that will come in time.
The second is the ability to manage an entire network of hosts from one location regardless of distribution or architecture installed on the remote host. I'm not holding my breath for the Windows or MacOS port anytime soon, but being able to manage even just a UNIX centric environment (Linux, BSD, etc) because of the unified front end is awesome!
I can see a future where eventually file locations can be abstracted for each systems idea of where things should go. Who knows, maybe the Windows, MacOS, ports aren't as far off as they once seemed.
Congrats Connectiva! Good thinking Apt developers!
-- Michael --