Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://blog.angulosolido.pt/2008/08/firefox-3-gtk-210-horror-show-open.html

  First you write the subject "this is why Windows doesn't need a package
manager" and then you present your argument: One piece of software which
requires a certain version of KDE or newer.

  The connection is so horribly inconsequencial, twisted and intentionally
provocative that I'm not going to even bother with it. What you wrote was,
in common internet parlance, pure trolling.

  For a time I seriously thought you finally were above such lowly trolling,
but seemingly I was wrong.

> And this is the sort of thing that RPMs don't do for you that the 
> Singularity thing does (and more):

> http://www.linux.com/feature/144170

  Uh? Maybe you mispasted a link or something? I really can't see the
connection.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> http://blog.angulosolido.pt/2008/08/firefox-3-gtk-210-horror-show-open.html
> 
>   First you write the subject "this is why Windows doesn't need a package
> manager" and then you present your argument: One piece of software which
> requires a certain version of KDE or newer.

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.

>   For a time I seriously thought you finally were above such lowly trolling,
> but seemingly I was wrong.

It wasn't really trolling[1].  It was a continuation of a previous 
conversation, where someone was saying that Windows was poor because it 
didn't have a package manager. I was pointing out that pretty much every 
Windows program is a stand-alone install, so it doesn't need a package 
manager. When it's not stand-alone and needs DirectX or .NET or 
something, that comes with the install. If your OS needs to upgrade 25 
packages to make Firefox work, then you better have a package manager, 
yes.   If your distributions tend to be stand-alone, then you don't. I, 
personally, would rather not need a package manager than to have one.


[1] I figured it would get a knee-jerk reaction, but it wasn't really 
intended as trolling. It was intended to perhaps start a conversation or 
clarify an earlier one, since when I made assertions earlier I didn't 
have an example.

>> And this is the sort of thing that RPMs don't do for you that the 
>> Singularity thing does (and more):
> 
>> http://www.linux.com/feature/144170
> 
>   Uh? Maybe you mispasted a link or something? I really can't see the
> connection.

I'm giving an example of an add-on service for Linux package management 
that checks the same sorts of things that the Singularity "package 
service" checks. Just a bit of a continuation of why I earlier said that 
"RPM doesn't do what Singularity does". It's checking the same sorts of 
things that Singularity checks in addition to the right versions of 
stuff being listed as being installed.

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

Post a reply to this message

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.  I am sure that Linux apps 
could just as easily be distributed as binaries which fully install 
everything needed to run the application.

The reason that Windows apps would not succeed this way while Linux apps 
do is because Windows users have come to expect complete support from 
the installer, whereas Linux users are accustomed to doing more of the 
legwork.  Linux is far more of an OS for gurus and hobbyists, while 
Windows is marketed towards people who never want to "lift the hood," so 
to speak, and would be utterly lost if they ever had to.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> http://blog.angulosolido.pt/2008/08/firefox-3-gtk-210-horror-show-open.html
> 
> And this is the sort of thing that RPMs don't do for you that the 
> Singularity thing does (and more):
> 
> http://www.linux.com/feature/144170
> 

So, the goal of a package manager is to have just the packages you need 
installed, and keep the upstream developer from having to include all 
the libraries they and everyone else use in each package, and it fails 
because it does exactly that?

It seemed like the guy might have had a good complaint of 'Mozilla 
shouldn't use GTK 2.10.6, and should have used 2.6' except that they 
probably would have if they 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!

Post a reply to this message

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.) 

Yep, it could, but in this case, it doesn't. OTOH, FF3 also available in 
sources, so repo-admins could have compiled it with statically linked 
GTK for theier distros instead of letting dynamically linked in.

Oh, wait... There's no mention that FF3 came from reposity, so I'll need 
to assume it came as single binary-packet with it's own installer. Why 
wasn't it installed via the package manager?

> 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.

True, neither would such software sell for Linux. I'm sure there would 
be loads of refund-requests of FF3 after that kind of screwup, if it 
wasn't free of cost.

> It wasn't really trolling[1].  It was a continuation of a previous 
> conversation, where someone was saying that Windows was poor because it 
> didn't have a package manager. 

I guess this means our conversation at p.o-t.f.h.b.b.b? 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.

> I was pointing out that pretty much every 
> Windows program is a stand-alone install, so it doesn't need a package 
> manager. 

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.

> When it's not stand-alone and needs DirectX or .NET or 
> something, that comes with the install. 

Not always (actually I can't remember a single .NET -software I've 
installed that inholds the .NET system), but luckily they are easy to 
find from MS's site (after you work out *which* version of .NET you 
need[1]). I'd still like (it's still an opinion) do that with "install 
.net-2" (yes, after I work out which version of .NET I need[1], because 
there's no package manager).

[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.

> If your OS needs to upgrade 25 
> packages to make Firefox work, then you better have a package manager, 
> yes.

Assuming from that web-page, the Windows-binaries of FF3 are 
statistically linked, Linux-binaries aren't. If Windows-binaries weren't 
(yep, they don't have to be), you'd still need to upgrade GTK on Windows 
also - and possibly the other software that rely on GTK (which are rare 
at Windows -world, that's what makes the difference and what makes 
static linking of such libraries more reasonable than dynamic linking).

>   If your distributions tend to be stand-alone, then you don't. I, 
> personally, would rather not need a package manager than to have one.

I, personally, would rather go start-install-"firefox3" or 
start-run-"install firefox3" than 
start-applications-seamonkey-seamonkey-"http://www.firefox.com"-download-setup.exe. 
Even when there's no dependencies or other software to be installed. 
*That's* what I ment earlier.

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

Post a reply to this message

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.

  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? Should libc.so be included?
You know, maybe someone doesn't have it, so better include it just in case,
no?

  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. 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.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   In Windows you are forced to always include everything in the package.
> 

To be precise, you're not. For example Gimp at least used to (I don't 
know if it still does - haven't used Gimp for Win for a while) use 
dynamically linked GTK, so you had to install GTK first.

But if you *sell* a software saying "This will work on Windows[1] - just 
install it" it *has* to work on "plain" Windows[1] to keep your 
customers happy, that's why practically all commercial software packages 
include everything possibly needed (expect Windows[1] itself) - and from 
there it has got to be normal approach for Windows-world (which is 
highly commercial, even though there are lot of free software for 
Windows also).

[1] Heck, change this to anything you want - iPhone, calculator, RH6.2 
(Zoot), *anything*. If you promise your product to work on XYZ, it *has 
to* work on XYZ.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 16:38:19 -0700, 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.)

There are a great many Linux apps that use static linking to bundle the 
necessary libraries with the package.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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.

> I am sure that Linux apps 
> could just as easily be distributed as binaries which fully install 
> everything needed to run the application.

One would expect so, yes.

> The reason that Windows apps would not succeed this way while Linux apps 
> do is because Windows users have come to expect complete support from 
> the installer, whereas Linux users are accustomed to doing more of the 
> legwork.  Linux is far more of an OS for gurus and hobbyists, while 
> Windows is marketed towards people who never want to "lift the hood," so 
> to speak, and would be utterly lost if they ever had to.

Yep.  And?

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Warp wrote:
> 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

I agree. I should have added more context.  I should have realized I was 
posting it on a group with a larger audience than the previous group.  I 
could have put in some disclaimers or something that I wasn't bashing 
anything (altho I generally try not to bash anything as such anyway).

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Darren New wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>> 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."
> 

That was the impression I got from the blog, that he thought GTK was 
some sort of stable system. That's also why I put the phrase in quotes.

> 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?
> 

Yeah, that boggled my mind as well. I put firefox 3 on my laptop, cause 
it wasn't doing anything. I waited till I was done with every major 
project and knew my desktop would be free for a week before installing 
it there. Didn't suffer any problems with the migration, but I couldn't 
have afforded the time to restore bookmarks and passwords if I had done 
it during crunch week.

>> 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. :-)
> 

Sorry, I read "this is bad and is a reason why technology B is better" 
as a mild endorsement of the bloggers rant.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>     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.

Why mention, at all, the lack of a given feature unless one considers 
that lack to be a flaw?

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:00:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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. :-)

Well, arguably, part of the premise you started out with was "because you 
can bundle all that stuff in with the application, but Linux doesn't.", 
which is a contrary point of view.... ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>     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.
> 
> Why mention, at all, the lack of a given feature unless one considers 
> that lack to be a flaw?

Because someone earlier had mentioned the lack of a package manager as a 
flaw. I was pointing out that neither lack nor presence of a package 
manager is a flaw.

Here's an idea: don't argue with the person making the statement when 
they tell you what they intended the statement to mean. Feel free to 
misinterpret the statement when it's poorly worded, but when 
clarification is forthcoming, to insist that your interpretation of what 
the person meant to say is somehow more accurate than what the speaker 
intended to say is counterproductive.

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

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:00:57 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> 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. :-)
> 
> Well, arguably, part of the premise you started out with was "because you 
> can bundle all that stuff in with the application, but Linux doesn't.", 
> which is a contrary point of view.... ;-)

Note the difference between "could" and "does."  I even said "(You 
probably could, but generally don't)" in the original post.

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

Post a reply to this message

Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> Sorry, I read "this is bad and is a reason why technology B is better" 
> as a mild endorsement of the bloggers rant.

It was my bad for getting the follow-up to a conversation into the wrong 
newsgroup. A completely reasonable misinterpretation of my intent on 
your part, yes. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

(to be noted at first: now I think I've managed to say what I ment 
earlier, therefore the conversation seems a lot healthier now)

Darren New wrote:
> 
> 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.

Well yes, it can be thought as one, but... It's a universal search 
engine, it gets up *loads* of other stuff also - even when you search 
for software. Granted, with the correct search terms the software you 
want is usually at the top of the list.

> 
> 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. :-)

I've *never* coded any Windows -based software (unless you count Excel 
macros - I don't), neither anything with GUI. So yes, a pretty basic 
practice.

>> 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.

Nah, I mean actually to get the software publishers to actually post 
theier software/link to the repository...

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

...because of this. As I said, having a totally open system would have 
it's own negative points.

>> 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.  

Same here - I install a Windows -software[1] when one is really needed.

[1] I practically use Windows only at work, which clearly is not a 
playground. I do have Windows XP installed on my own laptop, but only 
for a couple of games.

> Mostly little utilities more than 
> packages complex enough to need something like .NET.

Most of the .NET -software I've installed are actually very specific to 
  the job they're ment to do.

>>> 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. ;-)

I... I... I don't think I need to anymore. Thanks Nicolas.

> So, you think sourceforge.net doesn't have financial difficulties? :-) 

Ah yes, storing all the software surely does cost money, you're right. I 
misread the free being also something else than free of cost.

> And, honestly, I think there's *tons* more (admittedly crappy) software 
> for Windows than Linux. 

Possibly, but there's still tons and loads of free software for Linux, 
which should pick up the problems, even in slighter mode.

> 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.

True that. And it's somehow sad that there actually is a lot of crap 
easily available for Windows, when most of that crap is crap because 
it's done poorly.

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

Sounds like a business idea :-).

But no, I don't have time to evaluate all the software. But the system 
could inhold a users preference -section to maintain some information of 
the level of the software.


> 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. 

Well... possibly. The system could do what the user normally does (get 
the package and either run it or uncompress it and run the given file 
from that location).

> 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. 

That could be possible too.

> 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.

True :).

> 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. :-)

That's possible, but the count can vary anywhere between 0-500, by the 
selection of the packages :P.

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

Post a reply to this message

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

Yes, thank you.

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

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> 
> 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 :)

Go ahead. Write a software which has dependencies and try to market and 
sell it and get some profit of it. If you'll promise it'll work on 
iPhone, it has to *work on iPhone*. Otherwise (at least part of) the 
buyers will complain.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:57:07 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Note the difference between "could" and "does."  I even said "(You
> probably could, but generally don't)" in the original post.

Yeah, but saying "Linux doesn't" says that no distribution does, but 
clearly that's not true.  Particularly the small distros will do this.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, but saying "Linux doesn't" says that no distribution does,

"Linux isn't a distribution, it's a kernel!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, but saying "Linux doesn't" says that no distribution does,
> 
> "Linux isn't a distribution, it's a kernel!"
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse
> 

Flamewar! Flamewar!

*grabs some snacks and leans back*

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










:-)

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:44:56 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, but saying "Linux doesn't" says that no distribution does,
> 
> "Linux isn't a distribution, it's a kernel!"

Well, yeah, but I wasn't going to say that. ;-)

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beating_a_dead_horse

Sometimes it's fun to do so, though. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:02:09 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:

> Flamewar! Flamewar!

Can you have a flamewar when there is essentially violent agreement on 
something? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:02:09 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> 
>> Flamewar! Flamewar!
> 
> Can you have a flamewar when there is essentially violent agreement on 
> something? ;-)

F___ you! Of course you can!

http://elbourne.org/sermons/index.mv?illustration+4882

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

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 15:00:13 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:02:09 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> 
>>> Flamewar! Flamewar!
>> 
>> Can you have a flamewar when there is essentially violent agreement on
>> something? ;-)
> 
> F___ you! Of course you can!
> 
> http://elbourne.org/sermons/index.mv?illustration+4882

Oh yeah?  Oh yeah?  OH YEAH?  Well, f**@ that noise!  You're just wrong 
and you know it!  D@mned trolls. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> Can you have a flamewar when there is essentially violent agreement on 
> something? ;-)

Of course, for example of the way of agreeing. ;-)

> Jim


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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:17:40 +0300, Eero Ahonen wrote:

>> Can you have a flamewar when there is essentially violent agreement on
>> something? ;-)
> 
> Of course, for example of the way of agreeing. ;-)

I'd have to disagree. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'd have to disagree. ;-)

"Dwarves are an argumentive lot. Of course, not all of them would agree 
with that assessment."

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

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:04:46 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'd have to disagree. ;-)
> 
> "Dwarves are an argumentive lot. Of course, not all of them would agree
> with that assessment."

Oi, I'm not THAT short! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message