Eero Ahonen wrote:
> I guess this means our conversation at p.o-t.f.h.b.b.b?

Quite likely. I didn't go rummaging.

> I wasn't saying 
> Windows is poor because it doesn't have a package manager (rpm, dpkg 
> oslt). What I did say is I'd like to have a software reposity for 
> Windows, to be used as easily as in Linux (ie Portage). There are 
> practically really low amount of dependencies at Windows-world, but 
> there's still a pretty load of software.

Yeah. The problem is, who is going to host such a thing?  We already 
have a software repository: it's called Google. :-)

> I'd (I, as me, so that being *an opinion*) still like to install 
> Irfanview, Firefox, GIMP and other software with "install irfanview 
> firefox gimp" -style command instead of surfing the 'net, downloading 
> each packet individually and running them.

That would certainly be convenient, but impractical for any commercial 
software. But for the free stuff? Sure, why would it be difficult? 
Nobody wants it enough to actually write the code to maintain the list 
of places to download setup.exe files from. :-)

> Not always (actually I can't remember a single .NET -software I've 
> installed that inholds the .NET system),

Actually, it was pretty common in the earlier days. And DirectX always 
came with the software. I think now that pretty much everyone has gotten 
.NET via windows update, folks don't include it as much. Certainly not 
in a downloaded product, but on CDs it still is there.  Why include a 
free download package with your download if it isn't needed?

Of course, those who don't even provide a direct link to the .net from 
their installer are just lame. :-)

> [1] .NET ain't fully downwards-compatible, so all .NET1 -software won't 
> work on .NET2 and all .NET2 -software won't work on .NET3. I don't know 
> if this is problem/reason of .NET or stupid programmers, but it's one of 
> the rare system today, which need to have an exact version of such 
> system on Windows. Java is another example of such system.

Actually, it's done on purpose, and specifically designed to work 
nevertheless. They call it "side by side execution".

> Assuming from that web-page, the Windows-binaries of FF3 are 
> statistically linked, Linux-binaries aren't.

Yep. Or at least, the right versions are included in the distribution.

> *That's* what I ment earlier.

Fair enough. And sure, having a nice interface to a repository in that 
sense is a good thing. But you can't really do that in the commercial 
world, and there's way way too much Windows software to do that for free 
in the "free" world. It's not like it would be hard to support - all 
you'd need is the list of packages to download and launch. Getting 
everyone to play along is the problem, and if folks don't play 
along,they don't show up in your repository *and* there's nothing you 
can do about it unless it's GPL so you can recompile it yourself to make 
it play along.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Um, no. It's because you can bundle all that stuff in with the 
>> application, but Linux doesn't.
> 
>   Linux? I thought you were talking about Firefox. Firefox != Linux.

Most Linux packages don't bundle all their dependencies into the 
package, primarily because most don't need to.  No, I wasn't talking 
about firefox except as an example of how Windows programs tend to be 
distributed with everything they need and Linux programs tending to rely 
on the package manager.

>   There's nothing stopping anyone from including whatever the program
> needs in the installation package (or even linking everything statically
> in the binary), but where do you draw the line? 

Dunno, really.  Good thing Linux has a package manager so you don't have 
to do that, isn't it? :-)

>   In Windows you are forced to always include everything in the package.
> Then you end up with the problem of your system having hundreds of thousands
> of dll files which you just can't delete because you can't know if something
> is using it.

Actually, the system does indeed keep track of that stuff. Tht's part of 
what's in the registry.  Of course, if your package isn't built right 
and it doesn't tell the system that it is using the DLL, then you have a 
problem when you uninstall the original provider of the package. Take a 
look, for example, at C:\Program Files\Common Files.

And of course, if you have different versions of DLLs that are supposed 
to be compatible but aren't, then it's a good thing you have lots of 
copies about.

> With a package manager you can try to remove some library, but
> if something requires that library, the package manager not only tells you
> that this is so, but it even tells you *which* apps require that library,
> and it even offers you the option of uninstalling also those apps if you
> want.

Yep. Windows only tells you it's in use. Of course, it's pretty easy to 
figure out which program is using it, by looking at the same parts of 
the registry that tells you it's in use.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> and it fails because it does exactly that?

No. It succeeds if it does exactly that. I didn't say "fail" anywhere. 
If you're referring to the blog post calling it a "fail", well, I think 
you've missed his point.

> could. Maybe he should really be complaining 
> about how these 'long use, stable libraries' keep having updates. Why 
> won't those developers just leave it alone!


-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> and it fails because it does exactly that?
> 
> No. It succeeds if it does exactly that. I didn't say "fail" anywhere. 
> If you're referring to the blog post calling it a "fail", well, I think 
> you've missed his point.
> 
>> could. Maybe he should really be complaining about how these 'long 
>> use, stable libraries' keep having updates. Why won't those developers 
>> just leave it alone!

(I hate RDP not always catching the key-up. :-)

Yes, I suspect the "long use stable libraries" shouldn't be adding 
important features. If you have features in 2.10 that you can't possibly 
get away without using, then I wouldn't call 2.6 the "long use stable 
libraries."  But that's just terminology.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> There are a great many Linux apps that use static linking to bundle the 
> necessary libraries with the package.

Actually, you don't even need static linking. You just need to include 
the right version in the package and install it properly (either in your 
own directory or overwriting stuff (leading to DLL Hell) or whatever).

Of course, there are still occasional programs where they say "if you 
get error 38173, go download some mumble DLL from Microsoft here..." 
That would be the Windows equivalent of Package Fail. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:17:11 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There are a great many Linux apps that use static linking to bundle the
>> necessary libraries with the package.
> 
> Actually, you don't even need static linking. You just need to include
> the right version in the package and install it properly (either in your
> own directory or overwriting stuff (leading to DLL Hell) or whatever).

True, you could do that, and override library paths with LD_LIBRARY_PATH 
environment variables....But you've just helped me make my case. :-)

> Of course, there are still occasional programs where they say "if you
> get error 38173, go download some mumble DLL from Microsoft here..."
> That would be the Windows equivalent of Package Fail. :-)

Yep...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>  
> Yeah. The problem is, who is going to host such a thing?  We already 
> have a software repository: it's called Google. :-)
> 

Somehow I can't think Google as software repository, but I might be too 
technical thinker (oslt) for that.

> That would certainly be convenient, but impractical for any commercial 
> software. But for the free stuff? Sure, why would it be difficult? 
> Nobody wants it enough to actually write the code to maintain the list 
> of places to download setup.exe files from. :-)

Actually I'm starting to think it could be a good programming practice 
:-). Software developers (possibly others, too, but it could create some 
problems) could enter the version, URL of the package, name of the 
executable and what versions of Windows it works for (ie. via the web). 
The software could sync this list either when told or by a schedule and 
when told, get the package and run the installer.

Yes, there's still problem of getting software to the reposity.

>> Not always (actually I can't remember a single .NET -software I've 
>> installed that inholds the .NET system),
> 
> Actually, it was pretty common in the earlier days. And DirectX always 
> came with the software. 

Yes, I remember DX coming with lot of games (I also remember that some 
games insisted to have older DX installed and that created problems). I 
don't remember .NET coming with any other software (OTOH I haven't 
installed a lot of .NET -software, just some).

> I think now that pretty much everyone has gotten 
> .NET via windows update, folks don't include it as much. 

Yep. I don't have one installed at my home-XP (yes, my laptop has one 
and I have booted it up once this summer, when I played C&C Generals at 
Norway :p), but I also don't update that XP, so I'm a special case anyway.

> Certainly not 
> in a downloaded product, but on CDs it still is there.  Why include a 
> free download package with your download if it isn't needed?

Yep, certainly not needed, since (as I wrote) it's easily available from 
MS's site.

> Of course, those who don't even provide a direct link to the .net from 
> their installer are just lame. :-)

Actually I don't recall seeing one even once. I'm getting more and more 
sure that we are mostly using different software on Windows ;).

> 
> Actually, it's done on purpose, and specifically designed to work 
> nevertheless. They call it "side by side execution".

Ok, now I know more.

> 
> Fair enough. And sure, having a nice interface to a repository in that 
> sense is a good thing. 

Yep, it would be freaking great IMO ;).

> But you can't really do that in the commercial 
> world, 

True.

> and there's way way too much Windows software to do that for free 
> in the "free" world. 

Umm... I don't get this. There's loads and loads of free software using 
such systems in Linux -world, so I don't straight away believe that the 
amount of free Win-software would be a problem.

> It's not like it would be hard to support - all 
> you'd need is the list of packages to download and launch. 

Yep. Also version and supported platforms would be needed to avoid 
problems and make upgrading software possible.

> Getting 
> everyone to play along is the problem, and if folks don't play 
> along,they don't show up in your repository *and* there's nothing you 
> can do about it 

Yep.

> unless it's GPL so you can recompile it yourself to make 
> it play along.

Hmm.. Why would it need to be recompiled? Yes, the next-clicking 
operation could be avoided, but having the setup up with just one 
command would already be a half of a win.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You know, I begin to see what Warp means when he says everyone takes the 
> worst possible reading of something.

  I'll turn the suggestions I get in these cases back at you: Maybe choosing
your words and phrasing appropriately will minimize the possibility of
misunderstanding... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> and it fails because it does exactly that?
>>
>> No. It succeeds if it does exactly that. I didn't say "fail" anywhere. 
>> If you're referring to the blog post calling it a "fail", well, I 
>> think you've missed his point.
>>
>>> could. Maybe he should really be complaining about how these 'long 
>>> use, stable libraries' keep having updates. Why won't those 
>>> developers just leave it alone!
> 
> (I hate RDP not always catching the key-up. :-)
> 
> Yes, I suspect the "long use stable libraries" shouldn't be adding 
> important features. If you have features in 2.10 that you can't possibly 
> get away without using, then I wouldn't call 2.6 the "long use stable 
> libraries."  But that's just terminology.
> 

It's not features that the GTK people can't get away without using, it's 
features that Mozilla wants to use. This complaint is not that much 
different, on the surface, then someone who wants to install a DX 9 game 
on a Windows computer with DX8...you mean, I bought the game, but I have 
to install something else too? I don't think, and I could be wrong here 
cause I don't follow GTK, that GTK has ever released a 'long term 
support' version of their library.

Yeah, there is a problem when it says 'requires 2.10 or higher' and 
means 'requires 2.10.6 or higher'. That's bad, and probably will cause 
lots of confusion. That's the actual problem, not the binary repository 
maintainers having to check through the dependency lists.

I'm not surprised that Ubuntu 7.10 has some problems with it. 7.10 was 
never a long term support version, and gets less work once the numbers 
move on to the next full version, 8.10 or something by now.

All I read in the blog post was "I want to use a older distro that the 
package manager maintenance  crew probably aren't supporting anymore, 
but I also want every new package delivered to me by my package managers 
without having to recompile new versions of old libraries." Yeah, some 
OSes, even distros, can do better then that. Gentoo's portage got me 
firefox3 with no problems on a machine that only gets updated once a year.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Somehow I can't think Google as software repository, but I might be too 
> technical thinker (oslt) for that.

It's not. It's a link repository. :-)  I think if you actually wanted to 
*store* all the software ever written for Windows, you'd be looking at 
an even larger expenditure.

> Actually I'm starting to think it could be a good programming practice 
> :-). Software developers (possibly others, too, but it could create some 
> problems) could enter the version, URL of the package, name of the 
> executable and what versions of Windows it works for (ie. via the web). 
> The software could sync this list either when told or by a schedule and 
> when told, get the package and run the installer.

It's ... pretty trivial to do that sort of code these days. Not really 
much practice, unless you've never done that sort of thing before. :-)

> Yes, there's still problem of getting software to the reposity.

If you can standardize the formats coming in, it wouldn't be hard. Just 
put the "browse" button in.

Next up: let the owner of the software take it down. Hire lawyers to 
defend you against people uploading illegal software. Etc.

>> Actually, it was pretty common in the earlier days. And DirectX always 
>> came with the software. 
> 
> Yes, I remember DX coming with lot of games (I also remember that some 
> games insisted to have older DX installed and that created problems). I 
> don't remember .NET coming with any other software (OTOH I haven't 
> installed a lot of .NET -software, just some).

Print Shop 2.0 did, for one. Lots of them just checked to see if it was 
installed, and if not, silently installed it for you off the CD. Kind of 
funky, but I can see their point.

> Actually I don't recall seeing one even once. I'm getting more and more 
> sure that we are mostly using different software on Windows ;).

It certainly sounds that way.   I don't tend to install a whole lot of 
ametuer-ware. Some, but not a lot.  Mostly little utilities more than 
packages complex enough to need something like .NET.

>> Fair enough. And sure, having a nice interface to a repository in that 
>> sense is a good thing. 
> 
> Yep, it would be freaking great IMO ;).

Go for it. ;-)

> Umm... I don't get this. There's loads and loads of free software using 
> such systems in Linux -world, so I don't straight away believe that the 
> amount of free Win-software would be a problem.

So, you think sourceforge.net doesn't have financial difficulties? :-) 
And, honestly, I think there's *tons* more (admittedly crappy) software 
for Windows than Linux. Pick some random utility - convert OGG to MP3, 
for example, or printing barcodes (as two recent examples of mine). How 
many versions do you think are distributed for something like this for 
compared to for Linux? Google the expression, and see how many of the 
top hits you go through before you find a version for Linux. (Or look 
for that expression in your Linux repository, and see how many hits you 
see, if you don't think google gives you good Linux results.)

There's lots of decent software in Linux. There's *tons* of crappy 
software for Windows, and no good way of sorting out which is which.

Now, if you ran a "windows repository" that had only the well-written 
utilities, I'd pay to access that. :-)

>> unless it's GPL so you can recompile it yourself to make it play along.
> 
> Hmm.. Why would it need to be recompiled? 

Well, repackaged. If all you get is "setup.exe" and everything's wrapped 
up in that, you're going to have trouble distributing it yourself in a 
package manager. Or if you get dozens of files as on a CD, you'll also 
have a bit of trouble there. I guess you could do what RPMs do, and wrap 
up everything with a script that runs afterwards to put stuff in the 
right place and register it in the registry. Kind of a bummer if it's an 
old setup.exe that reboots your machine at the end of the setup, before 
your package manager can record its successful installation.

I'm sure if you took 500 Windows packages that you can download right 
now, you'd find at least 100 you'd need to rework in some way to make 
them register their presence in *your* package manager. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message