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

Yeah. Funny how people say "you've just helped me make my case" like 
having a discussion automatically means you must disagree with them. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> 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? 

Sure. But DX9 ships with the game. :-)

> 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.

Dunno. I wasn't the one that first said "long use stable libraries."

It's also kind of odd that he'd be talking about putting Firefox 3 on 
"production machines" without upgrading stuff. Maybe it's just me, but 
either your system is working (in which case, why upgrade the UI 
component) or you have someone's random desktop machine they're using to 
surf random sites with (in which case why gripe that the package manager 
downloaded a bunch of packages?).  I mean, lots of businesses (banks, 
other customer service places, etc) use web browsers to get into their 
systems, but why would you want to put firefox3 on such a box?

> 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,

Yeah. Good thing agreeing with the guy wasn't my point in giving the 
example. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> [1] Heck, change this to anything you want - iPhone

If you use the official AppStore, yeah, your program better include
everything it needs. If you use Cydia (basically Debian APT for iPhone),
lots of software is dynamically linked there :)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> 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. :-)

Are you guys talking of something like this?
http://www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Are you guys talking of something like this?
> http://www.nabber.org/projects/appupdater/

I *told* you google finds everything, *including* package managers. ;-)

That's pretty cool.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I could have put in some disclaimers or something that I wasn't bashing 
> anything

  Yeah, that works just as fine as the "this is not a spam email"
disclaimers... ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> John VanSickle wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Um, no. It's because you can bundle all that stuff in with the 
>>> application, but Linux doesn't.  (Maybe it could, but it doesn't.) It 
>>> isn't an argument, it's an example. The argument is even simpler: 
>>> lots of Windows software wouldn't sell if you needed to buy other 
>>> software before you could install it.  Unless it's (say) some 
>>> business software that's a plug-in for Outlook, or a plug-in for WMP 
>>> or something.
>>
>> This is not symptomatic of a flaw in Linux. 
> 
> You know, I begin to see what Warp means when he says everyone takes the 
> worst possible reading of something.
> 
> Who said anything about "a flaw in Linux"?  Not I!  I said "A package 
> manager in Linux."  Unless you think having a package manager is 
> inherently a flaw.

You said that Windows doesn't need one; whether it was your intent or 
not, you imply that Linux does need one.  This in turn implies, whether 
you intended it or not, that this constitutes a flaw in Linux.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> You said that Windows doesn't need one; whether it was your intent or 
> not, you imply that Linux does need one.  This in turn implies, whether 
> you intended it or not, that this constitutes a flaw in Linux.

Except linux *has* one (or rather several), so ... it's really not much 
of a flaw, is it?

Linux requires a root file system, too. That doesn't make it flawed either.

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

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
>>>> Um, no. It's because you can bundle all that stuff in with the 
>>>> application, but Linux doesn't.  (Maybe it could, but it doesn't.) 
>>>> It isn't an argument, it's an example. The argument is even simpler: 
>>>> lots of Windows software wouldn't sell if you needed to buy other 
>>>> software before you could install it.  Unless it's (say) some 
>>>> business software that's a plug-in for Outlook, or a plug-in for WMP 
>>>> or something.
>>>
>>> This is not symptomatic of a flaw in Linux. 
>>
>> You know, I begin to see what Warp means when he says everyone takes 
>> the worst possible reading of something.
>>
>> Who said anything about "a flaw in Linux"?  Not I!  I said "A package 
>> manager in Linux."  Unless you think having a package manager is 
>> inherently a flaw.
> 
> You said that Windows doesn't need one; 

	Yes.

> whether it was your intent or 
> not, you imply that Linux does need one.  

	Arguable, but I'll play along.

> This in turn implies, whether 
> you intended it or not, that this constitutes a flaw in Linux.

	Here I lose you, just as Darren did. I can only repeat what he said: 
Your reasoning is valid only if you consider needing a package manager a 
flaw.

-- 
CONgress (n) - Opposite of PROgress


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Your reasoning is valid only if you consider needing a package manager a 
> flaw.

Actually, one could reasonably argue that *lacking* the package manager 
is the flaw. Indeed, that's exactly what started this conversation: 
someone commented that they wished the repository/package system was 
available for Windows. It was my bad that I put this later follow-up on 
the wrong subgroup of p.o-t

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

Post a reply to this message