I agree with all of this. Except that I think what MS does is "just fine.", and I've love to provide that ability for Ubuntu, and Ubuntu alone. And so I will. Hence why I wrote wiki.ubuntu.com/ThirdPartyApt, and am just now getting motivated to finish it (after this conversation.)
On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 12:10 -0600, Kevin Fries wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:09 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > The two are not mutually exclusive, and an ideal solution would incorporate > > both. > > I can't believe this conversation has gone on this long. Its a really > ill conceived idea that is either not explained very well, or has > evolved during this thread. > > First of all, the OP wants a one click install. But we already have > that in GDebi, and the upcoming apt:// protocol. If you publish > software and use the software out of the Ubuntu repositories, both > protocols will use the underlying APT system to pull dependencies, and > install in a safe and sane manner. If you are not building based upon > the Ubuntu core, you are more likely to brick your system than to get > any great functionality... so why would we encourage that behavior.... > because Microsoft does? Can we find a better one? > > Microsoft does not have to worry about different distros and the OP is > all upset that Linux can not reach it full potential until some high > school kid from Tallahassee, Rio, or Queensland can simply compile there > software, post it on the web, and allow it to be installed on all the > distros. The problem is that this is not possible. The impossibility > does not come from a technical problem, but instead a political one. > Technical problems can be overcome with hard work and technology. > Political problems will tie you up in knots for decades without any > resolution. > > The real problem is that not all system use LSB nor do all system > distribute their software as binaries. Those distros that don't follow > LSB will surely break if you install software that does. Due to the > nature of Linux, you can not enforce LSB. Heck, LSB even leaves vague > where several key items should be placed (lets start with /opt > vs /usr/local or /usr/games vs /usr/shared/games) Therefore, any one > size fits all installer will surely only serve a small portion of the > install base. As an example, I saw talk of re-inventing alien. But a > better Alien is only solving the RPM->DEB or DEB->RPM issue. Lets not > forget Gentoo's portage system and all its descendants like T2, Rock, > Puppy, etc. If one size truly fit all, ever woman in America should be > walking around in a Muumuu. Ladies? Guys want to suggest this to your > lady? The reason is that women are not all walking around in muumuus is > the same reason this idea will fail... One size does not fit all, and > different systems will require different solutions. Viva la difference! > > While the dream is nobble, and probably worth while, this is not the > solution. A better solution would be from the compilation and tools > side. A better solution would be to provide a single tool that takes > the code, and packages it for deb, rpm, ipkg, tar.gz, and an ebuild all > in one command. Then package it up with a solid testing and approval > process that makes it easy to get it into the approved repositories for > each distro. Maybe a clearing house system for packages. Once an > independent developer builds their new nifty widget generator, the nwg > project could be posted easily to all the major (and even minor) > projects all at once. > > Without running software though the various testing processes to insure > it is safe, we will have the same problem that has Microsoft in the > situation they are in right now. Microsoft has such a commanding lead, > and there market share is slowly dwindling. The battle is being lost in > Redmond, and stability, viruses, bloat, and cost are all playing their > part. Linux has MS on all these parts. Linux is more popular than > ever. Why would we ever want to begin copying Microsoft's bad habits. > One step installer sounds great, but it can not be done safely. > > As for the OPs problem with Synaptic... That is 500% off base. I know > this because I have sat down with end users and showed them synaptic, > and the gnome installer. If more geeks like us did this with their > favorite Windows user, I believe there would be more people asking why > Windows does not install as nicely as Linux. Want proof? > > http://windows-get.sourceforge.net/ > > Has anyone stopped to think that in our quest to solve bug #1, that the > answer is not to make Linux behave like Windows, but instead, show > Windows users a taste of what Linux does well. Linux already does > package management well... very well. > > Now can we get onto other problems???? > -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
