Little sceptical
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| richo123 Jan 23, 2007 1:39 PM EDT |
Already 3rd party repos are an issue with distros. This move possibly promises more headaches if on tries to do a distro upgrade. I would be very careful and check out exactly how linspire propose to handle this contingency. |
| bigg Jan 23, 2007 1:57 PM EDT |
I'm not entirely clear on how this works, perhaps because I'm more than satisfied with Debian's handling of software. I really hope it works because it (a) would solve a lot of problems with installation of certain things, which does prevent Linux from being a suitable alternative for some users, and (b) would eliminate the excuse used by guys such as Mark Shuttleworth that the only way to get new Linux users is to take Linux proprietary. I know it won't stop someone who likes proprietary software/drivers as much as Mark Shuttleworth, but at least his reasoning will be pretty lame at that point. If it's suddenly easy to install codecs without including them in the distributions, I'm all for it. |
| Abe Jan 23, 2007 2:50 PM EDT |
First off, Can't LXer get this published a little better. It doesn't look good when readers have to copy and paste into text editor to be able to read the whole thing. Could some one please try to get it fixed! It sounds like a good idea but there are many issues that need to be discussed and agreed to and many more questions that need to be answered. Let us start with what is in use currently. What is wrong with Deb packages? It is used by many distributors already What is wrong with Synaptic? It is the most user friendly most simple tool to install/update packages. What is wrong with methods and approach that PCLinuxOS uses to handle rpm packages? I personally never had a problem with and always found what I need easily and effectively. Have the other Linux distributors been involved in the development of this tool? How do the other Linux distributors feel about it? Is this tool going to be open & Free as in "libre" under the GPL? who is going to be the maintainer and supporter? On & on & on.... The idea is good one and Linux sure could use a unified tool instead of so many. But those and many more questions need to be answered first. |
| jimf Jan 23, 2007 3:33 PM EDT |
> First off, Can't LXer get this published a little better. That's what happens when people email you stupid press releases. > Linux sure could use a unified tool instead of so many. Yeah, I agree with you about using the deb and synaptic, but we know that ain't ever gonna happen. My feeling is that this is a DOA before it even begins. |
| dcparris Jan 23, 2007 4:29 PM EDT |
Remind me to beat Scott for not stripping out the e-mail headers. ;-) But Jim's right - Linspire e-mailed the PR. We may not always have time to fix links like that. |
| pastored Jan 23, 2007 5:05 PM EDT |
Abe - This message is specifically directed to you, to answer some of your questions. You wrote: > What is wrong with Deb packages? It is used by many distributors already Nothing is wrong with .debs - in fact, they're the best at handling dependency issues. That's why click-n-run is based on a DEBIAN system (Linspire is a Debian derivative, for those who don't know). > What is wrong with Synaptic? It is the most user friendly most simple tool to install/update packages. Nothing is really "wrong" with Synaptic. It takes a GUI approach to using the dpkg system, and makes it a LOT better. However, anyone who has ever used it must admit that it's not exactly the most intuitive program around. Before anyone starts sputtering, "but... but... *I* know how to use it...", remember Apply / Apply? Having to click on an oddly named button, and do it TWICE is not exactly the gold standard for ease of use. It's easy to use ONCE you've learned it... but my mother-in-law gets very confused when she wants to install software using Synaptic. (No, that's not a metaphor - my in-laws dual boot Linux/Windows, and I'm proud to say that they haven't booted into Windows for many many months.) > What is wrong with methods and approach that PCLinuxOS uses to handle rpm packages? I personally never had a problem with and always found what I need easily and effectively. Again, nothing wrong with PCLinuxOS's package management system. I've used RedHat, Mandrake, Mandriva, SuSE, PLD, PCLinuxOS, and a few other rpm-based distributions. PCLinuxOS definitely comes out the winner when comparing features and ease of use. > Have the other Linux distributors been involved in the development of this tool? Nope. Why would they? This is a pre-existing tool for Linspire which is being made available for use for other distros. I would think that now that it's been opened up, other distro developers will be able to contribute to its workings. Remember when SuSE was basically a closed-development system, and everything was done in-house? No longer: even though it is still a corporate entity (in fact, larger than it's ever been), it has opened itself up, and now there is an OpenSuse as well. Change is GOOD. > How do the other Linux distributors feel about it? Does that really matter? In this world of Open Source, does a developer need to check in with others before he makes his application available? Hmmm... did Linus T. do a community survey to see if anyone would have negative feelings before he made the offer to open his kernel? > Is this tool going to be open & Free as in "libre" under the GPL? According to the Linspire website, it's going to be released under an open source license. "Because the original CNR client software was written as a closed source application, so it had different requirements to work properly. A new CNR client will be introduced with Freespire 1.1 which was designed with the intention of being open sourced and having the necessary changes to solicit more community involvement. " I realize that doesn't mention exactly which license they're planning on using, but let's be honest here... there ARE a number to choose from! > who is going to be the maintainer and supporter? Well, primarily, that would be Linspire, since they *did* develop it for their distribution, and honestly, if you've never tried Linspire, it's amazing what they've done. Click-n-Run is truly a ONE CLICK INSTALL method. Think about that for a moment. One of the main charges that is often thrown against Linux is that software is too hard to install, especially for the new user. Now, personally, I think that Synaptic is very very easy to use, and I've demonstrated how to use it to my wife and to my in-laws many times. But they STILL end up saying, "Whoa... wait, you're going too fast... which button do I click?" > The idea is good one and Linux sure could use a unified tool instead of so many. But those and many more questions need to be answered first. Well, now that THOSE questions have been answered, you should have your next batch ready, and then Linspire can move ahead. Hmmm... But then again, since they're writing Open Source software, they don't really need anyone's permission, do they? They can just exercise their choice to release their own software, and if enough people like it, it will gain more and more users. --- Having said all that, one might assume that I'm a fanboy of Linspire. Personally, I don't use it, because I think it's like using someone else's desktop that they've HIGHLY polished (and very nicely, I might add), but the choices they've made for that desktop aren't the same ones I'd make for mine. Consequently, it's too much work to UNDO the polishing that Linspire has done, just to REDO that polish in a slightly different direction. In other words, their desktop is very usable - it's just not my cup of tea. I prefer really strong black coffee! G.B.Y.L.B.T., PastorEd |
| dcparris Jan 23, 2007 6:27 PM EDT |
That's a pretty thoughtful response, PastorEd. However, I don't recall having to click the Apply button twice in Synaptic. Maybe the process is just too automatic for me to notice that, but I honestly just mark the packages I want, and then click Apply. That launches a confirmation dialog to be sure that's really what you want to do. Is that really confusing? |
| jimf Jan 23, 2007 7:16 PM EDT |
> anyone who has ever used it must admit that it's not exactly the most intuitive program around I'd be interested in what you do consider to be intuitive. Truth is that any app requires a learned behavior to operate and, the basic use of synaptic is easier learned than anything else I've run into. Also, The fact that it can also be used as a much more sophisticated tool to manage your Distro is nothing to hold against it. > One of the main charges that is often thrown against Linux is that software is too hard to install, especially for the new user. I used to hear that when using Distros that require a compile, and, I used to compile kernels, but, the latest Debian based Distros need little other than a deb. Right now it's easier to install in Debian Linux than it ever was in windows. Essentially the 'to hard' thing is just old information and FUD. > STILL end up saying, "Whoa... wait, you're going too fast... So slow down :D If they're willing to put in the time and effort, they will be rewarded. These guys learned to function in Windows (more or less). I'm sure that they can do the same in decent Linux setup. If they can't they should have someone supporting them (as they probably did in Windows) and be in a user account that doesn't allow them to screw up. The idea that 'everyone' can manage a computer, no matter how dumbed down, is totally warped. What Linspire is really doing is starting yet another project that will handle installs, like synaptic, or kpackage. It may be better, or not... The users will ultimately decide whether or not the project survives. I just don't see it as any revelation. > the choices they've made for that desktop aren't the same ones I'd make for mine. But now you're talking about a user that is reasonably competent and experienced. I would never, in a million years, leave my OS or desktop 'as installed'. To a more experienced user learning, changing, customizing and playing with the thing is most of the fun. > I prefer really strong black coffee! Heh... Do a search for the LXer coffee thread :D |
| tracyanne Jan 23, 2007 7:25 PM EDT |
I've used the Linspire Click 'n Run installer on Linspire, having sold systems with Linspire installed, it's OK, but I think Synaptic is much better, and I personally prefer DrakConf. |
| Egon_Spengler Jan 23, 2007 7:36 PM EDT |
And for all the others, this CNR thing is going into Ubuntu as well. |
| jimf Jan 23, 2007 7:55 PM EDT |
> this CNR thing is going into Ubuntu as well Figures ;-) . |
| jdixon Jan 23, 2007 8:07 PM EDT |
> I'd be interested in what you do consider to be intuitive. I once heard a great quote: "The only intuitive interface is a nipple. Everything else is learned behavior." |
| jimf Jan 23, 2007 8:55 PM EDT |
Lol, good one jdixon. |
| dcparris Jan 23, 2007 9:05 PM EDT |
Then there's my co-worker who considers the need for documentation to be evidence of a poor design. In my view, "intuitive" is in the eye of the beholder. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 23, 2007 10:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:> First off, Can't LXer get this published a little better. Eh, no. There's a bug in LXer's page layout that makes long lines (such as links or preformatted plain text) stretch the post to the right and make it disappear underneath the whitespace between the article and menu column. I've mentioned it before. Quoting:> anyone who has ever used it must admit that it's not exactly the most intuitive program around Synaptic is one of the best package managers around. And that's exactly it's problem: It's a *package* manager, not an *application* manager. For new users, something like Ubuntu's "Add/remove applications" is much easier to use. I've never used CnR but from the look of the screenshots, it too focuses on applications rather than packages. |
| dcparris Jan 24, 2007 6:05 AM EDT |
I can certainly see your point about the difference between the "package" and the "application" manager. That makes sense. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 24, 2007 6:05 AM EDT |
> First off, Can't LXer get this published a little better. I swear I tried to make it look a little better but I was not about to re-write it for them. Otherwise it would have been MY press release. ;-) |
| bigg Jan 24, 2007 6:31 AM EDT |
When I was in college, the professors would give one of two responses if we submitted something lacking in quality. They would either send it back for a rewrite or throw it in the garbage. Perhaps for the sake of maintaining LXer's reputation for high quality, you should consider doing the same. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 24, 2007 6:41 AM EDT |
> Perhaps for the sake of maintaining LXer's reputation for high quality, you should consider doing the same. Good Point, But what I should have done is not published it and gone with one of the other stories about it that I did throw away about it.. |
| dinotrac Jan 24, 2007 6:43 AM EDT |
>Synaptic is one of the best package managers around. And that's exactly it's problem: It's a *package* manager, not an *application* manager. Bingo. Brownie points. Stars in the sky, wind in your hair, etc. User tools need to use metaphors that users relate to. Developers and techies may be comfortable with packages, but users understand applications better. Oh --- and lest I forget: Go Bears!! In fact, I think everyone on this list should root for the Bears, and their quarterback, Rex Gr OSS man. |
| bigg Jan 24, 2007 7:29 AM EDT |
I'm still a little fuzzy on this. If I want to install koffice with synaptic, I install koffice. Whether you call that a package or an application, it's still the program a new user is after, and it's pretty easy to install. You are saying that the problem with synaptic is that it lists too many "things" that can be installed? If there were only a subset of the "packages and applications" available to the user, that would make it easier? Is it a problem of not being able to scroll through and browse the available programs? I'm not arguing, I'm just not understanding the point. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 24, 2007 8:25 AM EDT |
bigg, that's my point exactly. A user does not need to be confronted with the fact that an application is split in a front-end, back-end, gui, extra-data and API header packages. Nor that it relies on certain libraries with cryptic names. Also, package names be rather cryptic or even duplicated (think dummy upgrade packages here). What to install? firefox? firefox-gnome? mozilla-firefox? All this can be hidden away from the user. What would be really usefull is if e.g. the Debian APT spec was updated to include an entry that states whether a package (and it's dependencies) provide an application or not. Application managers won't need to rely on a separate list of applications anymore. More over, we could do better dependency handling. When an application is deleted, we could also delete all it's dependencies that are not marked as an application and which nothing else depends on. Dependencies that are marked as applications should still remain installed (so you can create pseudo-packages) as would non-application packages that are manually installed (because the user knows best!). |
| jimf Jan 24, 2007 8:54 AM EDT |
> that's my point exactly Well, I understand your point, but, just find it inane. That's what meta packages are for.... i.e. get the whole pig, or just a ham. This is just another way of saying that those n00bs are just so stupid that they are incapable of learning anything, so, we gotta dumb it down. Now that's just plain insulting.... |
| bigg Jan 24, 2007 9:01 AM EDT |
Sander: What you say about dependencies is absolutely correct, and something I have wanted. I don't know how difficult it would be to implement. Linux tends to sometimes get bloated. I can understand what you are saying about narrowing the choices and giving useful descriptions. (Too many choices is one reason I prefer gnome to kde). I'm not sure if this would require moving to CNR. Yes, simplicity is beautiful. I agree with what you're saying. |
| jimf Jan 24, 2007 9:09 AM EDT |
> is one reason I prefer gnome to kde Well, I didn't want to bring that up.... Let's be polite and say that in most areas, Gnome is somewhat less 'granular' than is KDE in its control ;-) . Thank god there's a choice... |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 24, 2007 9:13 AM EDT |
> Well, I didn't want to bring that up.... Let's be polite and say that in most areas, Gnome is somewhat less 'granular' than is KDE in its control ;-) . I'll tell you what, with what I have seen of KDE 4.0 your statement will no longer be as true as it is now. |
| tuxchick Jan 24, 2007 9:23 AM EDT |
@dino- rah! rah! rah! I always root for the bears. And the deer, the elk, the cougars, the bobcats...it's just not sporting until the critters also get high-powered scoped rifles. |
| tuxchick Jan 24, 2007 9:26 AM EDT |
> I once heard a great quote: "The only intuitive interface is a nipple. Everything else is learned behavior." Not even that is true. First-time moms almost always need a bit of coaching to learn how to nurse their babies. "Intuitive" is one of those empty buzzwords that really means "I want Star Trek-type computers, where all I have to do is give it orders and then it does everything for me, and all I have to do is lie back and suck on my beer nipple." |
| jimf Jan 24, 2007 9:36 AM EDT |
> what I have seen of KDE 4.0 Yeah, I do believe that some at KDE are heading for the nipple too. As I said... insulting ;-). |
| bigg Jan 24, 2007 10:01 AM EDT |
> First-time moms almost always need a bit of coaching to learn how to nurse their babies. Yes, as the father of an 8-week old baby, believe me, it ain't intuitive. That must have been said by a "stereotypical" Linux developer. |
| Abe Jan 24, 2007 10:01 AM EDT |
Quoting:I'm not sure if this would require moving to CNR.That is exactly my point. Synaptic is a very power tool and has many nice features, but it is not perfect, nothing is. So consequently, that doesn't mean we should throw it away and adopt CNR. Quoting:In this world of Open Source, does a developer need to check in with others before he makes his application available?Normally no, but in the case of CNR, one distributor is trying to push their tool to replace multiple others. To get major acceptance, it would be prudent to involve others in the discussion so they are aware of what is it they will be benefiting of using CNR instead. Quoting:I swear I tried to make it look a little betterOK, since you swear to it, I believe you. No seriously Scott, select and paste into kedit then select and paste into LXer takes care of those iusses. Links you can add afterwards. |
| dinotrac Jan 24, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
>I always root for the bears That's the spirit. Nothing against colts, mind you. They are quick, frisky, and strong, fully able to stay out of a bear's clutches. Cornered, though, I have to take the bears. |
| Scott_Ruecker Jan 24, 2007 11:20 AM EDT |
> OK, since you swear to it, I believe you. No seriously Scott, select and paste into kedit then select and paste into LXer takes care of those iusses(sic). Links you can add afterwards. Thank You for the info, I will try it out. |
| richo123 Jan 24, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
Dino, Dino, Dino
Have you forgotten that Bears are the number one threat in the US? http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/videos... |
| dinotrac Jan 24, 2007 1:36 PM EDT |
>Have you forgotten that Bears are the number one threat in the US? Forgotten? I'm counting on it! |
| jdixon Jan 24, 2007 1:52 PM EDT |
> In fact, I think everyone on this list should root for the Bears, and their quarterback, Rex Gr OSS man. Well, I'll never forgive the franchise for the way they treated Baltimore, so while I won't root for the Bears, I'll definitely be rooting against the Colts. >Not even that is true. First-time moms almost always need a bit of coaching to learn how to nurse their babies. TC, the mom's aren't the ones using the nipple interface. They're the ones providing it. What you're pointing out is that taking care of the equipment providing an interface is usually harder than using said interface. I think everyone here can agree on that. > That must have been said by a "stereotypical" Linux developer. I believe it was a doctor, but my memory isn't certain on the matter. > That's what meta packages are for.... Agreed, but I think what Dino is saying in that regard is that meta packages are severly under-utilized, and that most of the details presented to the end user should be in the form of easily understood meta packages. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 24, 2007 2:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:What you say about dependencies is absolutely correct, and something I have wanted. I don't know how difficult it would be to implement. I don't think it would be very difficult at all. Technically that is. Policy-wise it's a nightmare because you'd have to convince Debian to update the Debian Packaging Policy and update all the packages accordingly. But you kill two birds with one stone. You can run an application manager and a package manager of the same package database, and you can largely prevent orphaned dependencies (the only thorn in my eye with current package management systems). Quoting:Well, I understand your point, but, just find it inane. That's what meta packages are for.... i.e. get the whole pig, or just a ham. That's even more packages in the repository, making it more confusing for new users. |
| jimf Jan 24, 2007 2:45 PM EDT |
> Agreed, but I think what Dino is saying in that regard is that meta packages are severly under-utilized, and that most of the details presented to the end user should be in the form of easily understood meta packages. Ah, is that what he meant! He started rambling on about the Bears, and my eyes glazed over ;-). Yes, meta packages are a very useful & powerful tool. I think it's not so much that the metas aren't used, but rather that the descriptors are sometimes vague in the extreme. This is an area where improvement would benefit both experienced and new users. |
| dcparris Jan 24, 2007 7:40 PM EDT |
I saw a bear once - at the zoo. My pa and his lady friend went backpacking up in the mountains (WV) and a bear or two came around the camp one night. I don't think his lady friend does much backpacking with him now. That said, I took a few classes in the Marines through City Colleges of Chicago (now Harold Washington College). All I ever did in Baltimore was eat and watch a pretty cool show. I guess I'll pull for the Bears. I can certainly see why a list of packages can be confusing for some people. I think the Add/Remove Programs utility in Ubuntu is pretty cool. I wouldn't suggest replacing Synaptic, but using the Program manager would be really cool for a lot of people. What I like about it is that it usually doesn't include all the additional libraries and other files - all you see are programs geared for the desktop. If you want to install a DB server, or you're just a control freak (like me), then Synaptic is surely a better tool. At least in that scenario, everyone - geek and non-geek - wins. |
| krisum Jan 25, 2007 10:13 AM EDT |
Quoting: What you say about dependencies is absolutely correct, and something I have wanted. I don't know how difficult it would be to implement.This is already available in Debian when using aptitude (which works for both depends and recommends, but not for suggests). That is why i would choose aptitude over synaptic or any other package manager any day. |
| jimf Jan 25, 2007 10:54 AM EDT |
> That is why i would choose aptitude over synaptic Huh??? I'd suggest you haven't used synatptic much lately. It does all that without the awkward aptitude interface. |
| richo123 Jan 25, 2007 1:48 PM EDT |
jimf, I am unclear about that. If synaptic is based on apt-get then aptitude is a better choice imho because it has better dependency resolution than apt-get.... |
| jimf Jan 25, 2007 2:14 PM EDT |
> it has better dependency resolution than apt-get Yeah, synaptic certainly does.... I won't say never, but, very, very rarely is there a conflict. Even then it's easy to resolve. |
| jimf Jan 25, 2007 2:54 PM EDT |
Look guys, I might use aptitude if I had nothing else. It's certainly resolves dependencies better than apt, but I remember DOS apps that had a more intuitive interface. Synaptic would probably worth it just for the improved overview in the GUI interface, but.... * you can specify 'standard upgrade' (apt) or 'smart upgrade' (with dependency resolution) or 'ask'... * You can list by 'pkg name', 'installed ver', 'latest ver', 'desc', and, a slew of other criteria. * You can search by 'pkg name', 'name and description', 'ver', 'dependencies', 'provided packages', or, even 'maintainer'. You can also set up your own (combination) search criteria. * Depending on your sources list, you can easily switch between, for example, testing and unstable; thus allowing you to maintain a mixed Distro with minimal risk. * there is also page that categorizes apps by section, as well as settings for how you view, what you view, colors for app status, app and terminal behavior and text, etc, etc, etc. If I've managed to establish a Desktop, why would I use something other than Synaptic? |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 25, 2007 10:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:If I've managed to establish a Desktop, why would I use something other than Synaptic? You're not an overwhelmed newbie. Quoting:This is already available in Debian when using aptitude (which works for both depends and recommends, but not for suggests). That is why i would choose aptitude over synaptic or any other package manager any day. There is one very big problem with Aptitude: It doesn't work on top of the APT database but alongside it. Things like unnecessary dependency removal only work if you installed all your applications through aptitude because it keeps it's own database of what has been installed where and why. That functionality needs to be pushed back into APT so it's available everywhere regardless of what package manager front-end you use. Someone should be able to install an application through the commandline and still be able to remove it (plus dependencies) through the GUI, whatever that GUI may be. |
| jimf Jan 25, 2007 10:55 PM EDT |
> You're not an overwhelmed newbie. True enough, but if you use the simpler settings, and stay within the release settings you sure don't need to be an expert either. That gives people plenty of time to ramp up their skills. Or are you saying that noobs shouldn't or just can't learn? ;-) |
| incinerator Jan 26, 2007 1:28 AM EDT |
my 2 cents: From the technical point of view, CNR has some unbeatable advantages: - Easy of luse, particularly for newly "converted" ex-wincrap lusers. - Ability to set up one centralised repository for several distros. Obvious disatvantages: - Free client, non-free server. That means there's one central authority to rule them all. The usual trust issues, potential conflicts of interest, elevated "market entry barrier" and so on. All the stuff that made you ditch windows in the first place. - It's a third party repo effectively. Technical challenges for bug handling and maintenance of the repo, as well. Potential to be a big technical problem for non-Linspire distros. - .deb/.rpm/.tgz hell. One package fits all distros? not! Realistically, CNR package maintainers will have to provide dedicated packages for each distro or distro family. That will effectively eliminate the benefit of having one centralised repo. The only benefit that's left is the ease of use. That is certainly worth going after, though. A free implementation of such a service already exists: klik http://klik.atekon.de/ Klik seems to be quite nice, indeed. However, there's still potential for technical difficulties as described above. In the end, it's up to each particular distro to embrace the idea or not. |
| jimf Jan 26, 2007 1:35 AM EDT |
> In the end, it's up to each particular distro to embrace the idea or not. True, but what that means is it's still unlikely there will be any 'universal' installer. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 26, 2007 2:06 AM EDT |
Personally I don't like klik that much. I prefer my applications to be installed in the regular locations and not in some tucked away virtual filesystem. Nice for noobs but not for CLI people like me. |
| incinerator Jan 26, 2007 2:53 AM EDT |
> True, but what that means is it's still unlikely there will be any 'universal' installer.
True, but there won't be one in the forseeable future, either way. sander: While klik isn't perfect, the approach is quite ingenious in my opinion. One problem usually encountered with 3rd party repos or external packaging systems like openpkg is that they can introduced invasive changes to your systems, like overwriting files belonging to other packages etc. Putting all the files in a virtual file system image mitigates that risk. Besides, klik and CNR are not designed for experienced people like you. You would just download a source tarball and "./configure - make - make install" it yourself. You might even make a .deb or .rpm out of the source tarball yourself. klik is designed to explicitly cater for those users who don't feel comfortable with CLI and all that packaging magic. |
| Sander_Marechal Jan 26, 2007 4:23 AM EDT |
As far as 3rd party packagers go, klik is quite good yes. However, in what way is klik better than a distro's native packaging tool? The only thing I can think of is the package v.s. application thing I mentioned earlier in the thread. I don't think it has any added value on distro's that already provide an application manager (such as Ubuntu).Quoting:You would just download a source tarball and "./configure - make - make install" it yourself. You might even make a .deb or .rpm out of the source tarball yourself. I'd probably do the latter. Stuff installed from tarballs tend to make my life a misery when it's time to upgrade. The only thing I actually install from tarballs are web applications because they can simply live entirely in a subdirectory below /var/www |
| Abe Jan 26, 2007 5:37 AM EDT |
Quoting:If I've managed to establish a Desktop, why would I use something other than Synaptic?I thought everyone knew that, obviously not. Good thing you highlighted the list for everyone. Besides, Synaptic is there, along with all the others on Debian based distros, so what the commotion is all about? |
| krisum Jan 26, 2007 7:06 AM EDT |
Quoting: I'd suggest you haven't used synatptic much lately. It does all that without the awkward aptitude interface.You mean synaptic now does automatic dependency removal, or showing only the packages that are not automatic dependencies, or showing the uninstalled recommended packages etc. If synaptic does all that then it would be much simpler to use that. As for the aptitude interface, it may be somewhat different to begin with but is a matter of getting used to. Quoting: There is one very big problem with Aptitude: It doesn't work on top of the APT database but alongside it. Things like unnecessary dependency removal only work if you installed all your applications through aptitude because it keeps it's own database of what has been installed where and why. That functionality needs to be pushed back into APT so it's available everywhere regardless of what package manager front-end you use.This is a valid issue. In absence of this functionality in apt as of now, aptitude is the best choice imho particularly since the debian installer also uses it as the default PM. |
| incinerator Jan 26, 2007 7:20 AM EDT |
"Besides, Synaptic is there, along with all the others on Debian based distros, so what the commotion is all about?" We live in a world were clever marketing works better than developing good software, that's why there's so much commotion about a non-vital service like CNR. Kevin Carmony: "Linux Linspire CNR jihad. CRN durka easy" Clueless IT journalists: "CNR durka durka durka" |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!