>-----Original Message----- >From: 9fans-boun...@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-boun...@9fans.net] On Behalf Of >Connor Lane Smith >Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:42 >To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs >Subject: Re: [9fans] Man pages for add-ons > >Hey, > >On 29 March 2010 13:14, Patrick Kelly <kameo76...@gmail.com> wrote: >> In my opinion, package managers are only a solution for systems that are >> already a mess. I've said it before, I downright hate Windows, but it gets >> by just fine without a package manager; Just install and uninstall >> 'scripts'. Those scripts wouldn't even need to be necessary on Plan 9, or >> any system that doesn't maliciously abuse a central configuration system. > >Installing a program on Windows tends to involve finding a webpage, >downloading an (unsigned) binary, and executing it. It doesn't get by >just fine: there's no difference between installing trustworthy >software, and trojans etc. That's one of Windows' many security flaws.
I was speaking strictly in terms of binary management within the system. Does no one understand what context is? Your confusing package management with security. You can easily put trojans, viruses, spyware, or anything you feel like into a package to be distributed via package management. Just because UNIX's security system is better, doesn’t mean package management can't be abused like installers for Windows or OS X can be. Windows has security issues (severe ones), but its program management is fine. >A package manager should, imo, just hget a url, confirm its origin >with factotum, untar, and mk install. That's simple enough I think. >It's more about the repository than the manager, really. > >I don't think Plan 9 needs a package manager in its current state >(with contrib, etc), but I think systems with more software benefit >from them. > >cls
