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

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

Post a reply to this message

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