Linux 101 Frustrates Yet Another Pundit
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2008 12:46 PM EDT |
How do these people manage in their daily lives? Honest to gosh, do they dress and feed themselves successfully? |
| tracyanne Jul 01, 2008 1:34 PM EDT |
He's merely doing what I did when I first started using Linux. And he's also saying pretty much the same things, except publicly. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 01, 2008 2:51 PM EDT |
Going from the world of Windows to a big-time Linux distribution and installing from source without first fully exploring all the other package-management tools at your disposal is putting the cart way before the horse. I don't think it's a "dirty little secret" that to avoid unpacking tarballs, compiling source code, doing the same with dependencies, etc., there are precompiled binary packages that can be easily installed either in a console or from a friendly neighborhood GUI application. I'm no expert on virtualization, so I took a look at http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/ and found out that VMware Workstation isn't FOSS. It's also not free. It costs $189. I don't fault anybody for putting out $189 to use a program, even if there are free alternatives that are easier to install, but you'd think that for the money, the VMware people could smooth the install process for Linux users. I don't think they're after the Linux market anyway, since it's hard to compete with free and open source. I enjoy reading Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, and I'm glad he's dipping his foot into the waters of Linux. And I figure that he either knows (or at least knows now) that proprietary software (or whatever VMware is, exactly) won't be in any "normal" Ubuntu, Debian or other similar repositories. I did find some install documentation for Linux -- http://www.vmware.com/support/ws55/doc/ws_install_linux.html -- and it looks like the standard procedure for installing an application from a tarball or an RPM package. You'd think that the nice folks at VMware would roll out a .deb package, but I guess they're right in thinking that people who use Debian-derived distros aren't as likely to pay for software as those using Red Hat, who are already accustomed to paying for things. I suppose what needs to be said is that users of Ubuntu and Debian can install Xen for virtualization. Again, I know next to nothing about it (http://www.xen.org/) , other than that it's virtualization -- and open-source licensed under GPLv2, and if one doesn't wish to install it from his/her distro's repositories, there are source packages and RPMs for Red Hat/CentOS, Fedora and OpenSuse here: http://www.xen.org/download/ That said, many of us have to bypass the repositories and install something from source or a non-repository package every once in awhile. And there are always ports in FreeBSD and OpenBSD that do all the heavy lifting for users. But I have faith in Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. The "dirty secret" isn't that installing from source is hard but that there are many thousands of packages from a single trusted source that can be easily installed -- and subsequently maintained -- with the package manager. Too bad Windows doesn't offer that, right? Kingsley-Hughes' main complaint is that every time he tries to install a program from source, he has to turn to Google to figure out what to do. Again, I'm no genius at all of this, but usually the instructions supplied for a source package are fairly detailed and usually complete. And there's always reading a book, right? For Linux, we've got lots of those -- and yes, Carla's is one of the best. But pick up any phone-book-sized Ubuntu tome off the shelf and have at it, right? |
| tracyanne Jul 01, 2008 3:45 PM EDT |
Steven VMWare IS a point an click install on Mandriva. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 01, 2008 4:00 PM EDT |
I did notice that Mandriva is well-supported by VMware. |
| tuxchick Jul 01, 2008 4:45 PM EDT |
A commercial app that only comes in RPMs and source tarballs is as big a joke as Vista. It has nothing to do with "Debian users are cheapskates"; it's just stupid. Packaging in multiple formats is easily done and common. I don't have a Gnome box handy- doesn't Nautilus have a right-click menu to unpack tarballs, and to install RPMs and debs? Or have some kind of way to do it without dropping to the command line? I'm pretty sure it does. Ubuntu should also have alien for managing RPMs, though alien is a bit obscure and not obvious to learn about. Quoting: The "dirty secret" isn't that installing from source is hard but that there are many thousands of packages from a single trusted source that can be easily installed -- and subsequently maintained -- with the package manager. Precisely. Quoting: And there's always reading a book, right? No WAY! Look for actual instructions? Try to learn something first instead of bashing about randomly and getting all mad? I don't know where you get these strange ideas, Steven. Don't you know it should be intuitive- in fact I'm boycotting all computers until they are 100% free of cost and respond to voice commands just like on Star Trek, only even better. Because Star Trek is fiction, so I expect more from real life. **edit** The confusion over distribution repos and cruddy third-party apps like VMWare is understandable- in a real noob. I expect more from someone who gets paid to write about this stuff. |
| jdixon Jul 01, 2008 6:39 PM EDT |
> VMware Workstation isn't FOSS. It's also not free. It costs $189. Yes. But VMware Player and VMware Server are both freeware (though not FOSS). Either of them will meet the needs of most home users. > ...but you'd think that for the money, the VMware people could smooth the install process for Linux users. VMware Workstation isn't intended for the home user market. It's intended for a business, where there will be people who know how to install it. The VMware Server install script installed version 1.0.6 on Slackware 12.1 with absolutely no problems. This included calling the compiler to compile the necessary modules. If it works with Slackware, how hard can it be on any of the major distributions (assuming you have the compiler and kernel source installed)? In any case, VMware isn't your only virtualization option. Just for starters, you can use the commercial version of Virtualbox, the open source edition of Virtualbox, or Qemu (the latter two seem to be available in the Debian repositories while the commercial version of Virtualbox is available as a .deb file). So while the point he's making is valid, the situation isn't anywhere near as bad as he seems to think. Now, if he were using Slackware at this stage in his Linux journey, I might have some sympathy. :) |
| bigg Jul 01, 2008 6:39 PM EDT |
Never been a fan of this guy, but he's pretty much spot on here - these things can be done, but it's unnecessarily difficult. I'm not blaming anyone, that's a debate for a different day, but this is the kind of stuff that drove me crazy when I first played with Linux. > doesn't Nautilus have a right-click menu to unpack tarballs, and to install RPMs and debs? I'm using Mint at the moment. You right click and have an option to open tarballs, extract here, and with .debs to open in gdebi. The bigger problem is that newbies don't have a clue what those things are and most distros do little to make it easy to figure them out. |
| jacog Jul 02, 2008 1:30 AM EDT |
> The bigger problem is that newbies don't have a clue what those things are and most distros do little to make it easy to figure them out. My first thought is that if the icon design makes it clear that it is an archive, they use would know what they can do with it. But then I have had to explain the concept of an archive to people several times before. If a user clicks on an icon, the icon should perhaps open in an application of some sort that has some help included ... and if it's something that the user can't really do anything with, ie a .so file or somesuch thing, perhaps the default file association should be a simple "What's this?" type application. |
| hughesjr Jul 02, 2008 6:25 AM EDT |
I actually beg to differ with "most distros do little to make it easy to figure them out" your example is Mint ... and there is this page: http://linuxmint.com/wiki/index.php/Introduction I am a CentOS Developer an we have: http://wiki.centos.org/ and http://www.centos.org/docs/ Ubuntu, CentOS, and Fedora have Mailing Lists, Wikis, IRC Channels, Forums, etc. If you don't know how to install programs on your distribution, you chose not to look at their website. |
| bigg Jul 02, 2008 7:19 AM EDT |
@hughesjr The point I was making is that there should be a better way than having to dig for a webpage. There is the "double click on the icon" action. That is followed by either nothing happening or something scary happening, like a menu popping up asking to choose an application, particularly when they find themselves dealing with the Linux filesystem. It is too great a leap to expect most new users to react to this by searching for a website or posting in a forum. That is what anyone who has used Linux for any period of time will do, but it's not what the average person trying out Linux will do. Even if they do find their way to the proper website, they will have to spend a bunch of time reading the info, figuring out what to do, learning new terminology, etc. And then when they run into another problem, the whole cycle repeats. The action that will follow for most users is "go back to Windows". jacog's suggestion might be a start. It's not an easy problem to solve, but nonetheless is a very significant problem. |
| tuxchick Jul 02, 2008 7:22 AM EDT |
Does looking for installation instructions from VMWare require a genius-level intellect? Blaming Linux is easier, I guess. |
| bigg Jul 02, 2008 7:53 AM EDT |
> Does looking for installation instructions from VMWare require a genius-level intellect? No, but if we want to bring Linux to the masses, it's an obstacle we will have to deal with. I get too frustrated with the whole thing, so that's why I don't evangelize. I let them ask me questions and then point them in the right direction. There's no substitute for free, live, personal help. > Blaming Linux is easier, I guess. It's what those testing the Linux waters will do. I don't think they necessarily blame Linux. They just think Linux is hard. They think Windows is hard too. The difference is that they can ask a coworker, spouse, or a stranger walking down the street for help with Windows. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 02, 2008 7:57 AM EDT |
The point I'm trying to make out of all of this is that the whole concept of distributions and package management make installation, removal and maintenance of not just applications but the entire operating system something that just about anybody can do. If you're going off the reservation, so to speak, to install packages from source, then it's incumbent upon you, as the user, to know what the hell you're doing. Comparing Linux to Windows in this regard, as Kingsley-Hughes does, is a poor analogy. Yes, the usual way that software in installed in Windows is with precompiled binaries and install scripts that do everything that needs to be done. Ever try to install a program from source in Windows? Maybe if it was written in Visual Basic or something, but then you need to get the runtime libraries. I guess what I'm saying is that Windows has those inconsistent installer routines, and Linux and BSD generally have full package management that takes care of dependencies along with all the build tools you need to compile from source. And if some individual wants to produce a non-free program and charge for it, yet make it available for a free, open-source operating system, let them serve their customers properly and either offer comprehensive instructions on compiling for their system, or provide precompiled binaries that will work for them. In my mind, the fact that companies think they can sell software to users who get so much for free either means they've got a lot of chutzpah, don't have much of a clue about what they're doing ... or really do have a compelling product that users want and are willing to pay for. But at least give your customers some value, right? |
| rijelkentaurus Jul 02, 2008 8:13 AM EDT |
To get VMWare running on Mandriva with the 2.6.24.5 kernel, I had to depend on some nice soul who had hacked it before and gave everyone the fix. It was still a pain. That's VMWare's issue. To be fair, VMWare really designs their product (the high end stuff being based on a Red Hat kernel) for Red Hat and its kind. Installing VMWare on CentOS is easy as pie, it's the distro style it's made to work on. But that's not Mandriva's fault, is it? And if you have problems and trepidations installing things on Linux, it's probably not much easier for you on Windows. If it's not "next-next-next-next" then most users won't touch it. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 02, 2008 8:15 AM EDT |
Follow up to Adrian Kingsley-Hughes on ZDNet: http://blogs.zdnet.com/perlow/?p=9145 With more clarification on why VMware is easy to install on Red Hat and Suse, not so much on everything else. |
| tuxchick Jul 02, 2008 8:33 AM EDT |
You are right, bigg, I just get impatient with tech writers who pretend to be as dim as the mythical average user, who is nowhere near as dim as they seem to believe. Getting paid to complain is a sweet deal, I guess; I'd rather offer something useful to readers. |
| hughesjr Jul 02, 2008 8:51 AM EDT |
@bigg Which icon is it on Windows that tells you how to compile programs that are not included or discusses your profiles in depth or how to install programs, or detailed procedures for joining the windows machine to a domain, etc. If you need to know stuff about those things, there is no icon, you go to the microsoft knowledge base ... why would you expect windows to be any different. RHEL and CentOS actually DO have deployment guides that you can choose to install, but that is beside the point. If you want to learn the how to do the exact same things in windows, you look it up at the website. |
| hkwint Jul 02, 2008 3:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:> Does looking for installation instructions from VMWare require a genius-level intellect? I would go even further, and say over 90% of Linux distro's use a stupid distribution model that disqualifies them from distributing non free software. Totally needless. Even Gentoo and OpenBSD get it right! Yeah, installing VMWare in Gentoo (and probably OpenBSD too) is _much_ easier than in Debian or any of its clones (including 'Linux for human beings')! It goes like this: emerge vmware-player it installs the player (no user action needed) and tells you how to run the configure script, so you don't have to Google. It also tells how to add the service to the boot level. No downloading by the user needed, no kernel-action needed, emerge does it all! Even someone who never used VMWare before - like myself - would be able to install it on Gentoo, without having to search on internet. What distributions like Debian etc. do wrong, is that they copy the sourcecode, compile, pack, put it on _their_ repo-servers and then redistribute. Works really great for free software, but of course, they can't do that with VMWare or Google Picasa, since the license forbids it. However, in the case of binaries like that of VMWare or Google Picasa there is no _single_ reason to repack it (those binaries are already packed!) and put the binaries in the repo. Just point the package manager to the proper VMWare download-site and you're done! This is for example the way Klik works, and I understood you can install Google Picasa or Google Earth with a single click using Klik. Can't do that with apt-get in Debian AFAIK. So this issue was resolved long ago, I think with the first FreeBSD versions (first half of the 90's). It's really, really stupid this has to be an issue for Debian etc, while at the same time it isn't (even) an issue for a 'user-unfriendly' system like Gentoo! I wholeheartedly agree this should be fixed. Not because packet managers should encourage use of proprietary 'evilness' like Picasa or VMWare, but just because the fix has been available for over a decade! Coming to think o it, I might as well try to make a 'Klik' file which enables the "BSD-ports" way of doing things in Debian. After that, Linux newbies can install VMWare (the gratis editions only of course) with a single click, even in 'Linux for human beings'. |
| helios Jul 02, 2008 3:57 PM EDT |
Bigg has a point and I've been making it for some time. An inclusive, complete and easy-to-understand manual needs to be available as part of the binary, tar.gz or package and if it manifests itself as an icon to an executable or link to a website, it needs to be deployed upon the desktop. I've created rpms that do just that so I know other package management systems can do it. We (just everyday users) spent months and months of our life writing, editing, polishing and implementing the pclinuxos wiki. I find a bit of pride in the fact that much of my original text is still in that document although the distro has evolved greatly since. I know documentation exists for apps like vmware, so why can't there be a condensed or edited version of that documentation be used and deployed in the manner I mention above. Nothing will chase a new user back to Windoze faster than having to hassle with poorly written or hard to find documentation. It doesn't matter what the app is. As of late, I am personally taken with the 3.5 release of Sabyon (sp?) Linux. Not only did the iso for the dvd download at crazy fast rates, the presentation of thier documentation and applications are right on the desktop and you don't need internet access to read them. I am duly impressed. h |
| hkwint Jul 02, 2008 4:03 PM EDT |
Agree to that Helios. As a start, Linux could / should feature a 'man afterboot' which displays at first startup. That's default in a "user-unfriendly" OS like OpenBSD, but not in 'Linux for human beings' AFAIK (or does it?). That's something I can't explain people if I'd were to recommend Ubuntu. Anyway, what I was thinking of is this: Once first started, a Linux distro should show some animations explaining how things work in a way my grandma could understand; especially the difference between installing apps in Win and Lin. I planned to make those, but of course the lack of time prevented me from doing it. Anyway, is somebody aware of a kind of 'Distro-tour' (like the tour in XP) that is available in any distro (Ken, does PCLinuxOS have this)? |
| helios Jul 02, 2008 5:14 PM EDT |
I am not sure as of now, but there has been for some time an extremely attractive page/document that opens up from a desktop icon...and that leads to a comprehensive wiki/information data base. I am also beginning to follow a spin off of pclinuxos called granular that does have something like you are speaking of. It is an impressive piece of work and when you get time, take a look at their latest release candidate. It is uber-stable and for all intent, IS the stable release. I too will burn it tonight and take a look at it and report back with screen shots. h |
| Steven_Rosenber Jul 02, 2008 7:42 PM EDT |
OpenBSD is all about reading the FAQ and the man pages. And both are of extremely high quality. I'm no OpenBSD expert, but I don't think virtualization is big in its world. |
| krisum Jul 02, 2008 8:58 PM EDT |
@hkwint
Quoting: What distributions like Debian etc. do wrong, is that they copy the sourcecode, compile, pack, put it on _their_ repo-servers and then redistribute. Works really great for free software, but of course, they can't do that with VMWare or Google Picasa, since the license forbids it. However, in the case of binaries like that of VMWare or Google Picasa there is no _single_ reason to repack it (those binaries are already packed!) and put the binaries in the repo. Just point the package manager to the proper VMWare download-site and you're done! This is for example the way Klik works, and I understood you can install Google Picasa or Google Earth with a single click using Klik. Can't do that with apt-get in Debian AFAIK.This is incorrect. Debian has non-free and contrib repos which serve this purpose. For example, flash-plugin-nonfree package does not contain any binaries rather downloads and unpacks the binaries from the internet as part of post-install operation. Same with packages like sun's jre, msttcorefonts etc. Btw, debian does have a vmware-package in lenny/sid that automatically builds the packages from the downloaded tarballs. Ubuntu has had vmware-player in its repos till 7.04 but is no longer available due to some reason. However, the issue being raised is not of software available from repos. Nearly everyone agrees that installing software available from official repos is trivial for modern linux distros. The issue is about software from third party (vmware being an example). I will also add the issue of new versions of software available in repos, since unless one is in the mode of constantly upgrading OS, it is very hard to get newer versions of software installed. For example, I was trying to get new pidgin installed on suse 9.x (for google talk) which is installed on the workstation at work place. The only option was to compile from source and then hunting down the required development packages was a real pain. In contrast, installing the same on Windows XP is a matter of just running the provided exe -- being able to install from binary is unimaginable for any third party program on any linux distro released at about the same time as Windows XP. In other words even for binary packages that a third-party makes available for your distro, one has to constantly keep on upgrading the OS (at least once every year) to have any hope of being able to install it. I have not seen any distro which has a strong concept of backward compability. LSB tries to solve the above issue but its uptake by third party packages is glacial to say the least, and it does not support even a third of dependencies that a modern GNOME or KDE app will require. Also to actually make use of LSB, distros should make very clear (in "About" or somewhere prominent) as to the version of LSB supported. So then thirdparty can prepare packages spelling out clearly the minimum LSB version required for the package. |
| krisum Jul 02, 2008 11:19 PM EDT |
Carla,
Quoting: A commercial app that only comes in RPMs and source tarballs is as big a joke as Vista. It has nothing to do with "Debian users are cheapskates"; it's just stupid. Packaging in multiple formats is easily done and common.This might be expected of a commercial entity like VMware, however for other not so big entities or individual developers, the current third party linux packaging scene is a nightmare. For a mock exercise, lets say I have a nice little C++ utility (probably one among the thousands at freshmeat/sourceforge) that I will like to distribute in binary form for linux. To keep things simple it does not use any of GNOME/KDE or other libraries. I have the source all ready and runs fine on my machine which runs say Mandriva 2008.1. Now making even this available for multiple distros is a huge exercise and not easy at all. Probably you can help detail the steps I should take to accomplish this. As a contrast, doing the same on a Windows XP machine is simply done by adding a deployment project in Visual Studio and building it to create an msi installer. Not that I want a similar GUI way for Linux, but on Linux it is really very hard to do so for multiple distros -- if someone knows better please tell me. Something like an autopackage integrated with native package management system? |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 03, 2008 2:17 AM EDT |
@krisum: Virtually all distro's support autopackage alongside their native package management system. Most of the closed-source Linux software I use (Like my tax application) use it. It works quite well. It's a bit similar to the Nullsoft installer on Windows. |
| NoDough Jul 03, 2008 5:41 AM EDT |
hkwintQuoting:Anyway, is somebody aware of a kind of 'Distro-tour' (like the tour in XP) that is available in any distro...Yes, Linspire, everyone's favorite whipping boy has one. (Had one?) |
| Bob_Robertson Jul 03, 2008 6:41 AM EDT |
> so why can't there be a condensed or edited version of that
> documentation be used and deployed in the manner I mention
> above. Nothing will chase a new user back to Windoze faster
> than having to hassle with poorly written or hard to find
> documentation. It doesn't matter what the app is. Debian uses /usr/share/doc/{application_name} as just such a repository of manuals, "changes", examples, and other useful stuff. The problem I had was that it was a year or more using Debian before I knew that the directory existed. The "newbie" to Windows has exactly the same problems finding documentation, but for some reason no one is expected to _be_ a newbie on Windows. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 03, 2008 7:14 AM EDT |
On GNOME, virtually all apps have a "help" menu item that launches GNOME's help browser with the application's documentation. I'd be surprised in KDE doesn't have something similar. |
| krisum Jul 03, 2008 7:14 AM EDT |
@Sander: Yes, autopackage seems to be the best bet. It even seems to handle glibc symbol versioning, C++ ABI change, GTK+ version incompatibilities. However, very few third party apps actually seem to be using it?? Maybe the more standard approach is to create LSB complaint packages, but that too seems to be a major task. Even so, the main issues are that running newer versions of apps is still too hard without upgrading the whole OS, and that the lack of standardization in providing third party apps means that if one is not lucky then one has to compile from source (which can get hairy for GNOME/KDE apps). |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 03, 2008 7:24 AM EDT |
@krisum: I see quite a few third party apps use autopackage. But it's likely apps that you've never heared of, like our Dutch IRS's electronic tax return application.Quoting:the main issues are that running newer versions of apps is still too hard without upgrading the whole OS. Often, this is not a problem of the package but of the developer. Some developers always rely on the latest features because they have a system that has all that (e.g. a recent Ubuntu or Debian Lenny). Other developers don't use the latest features but don't know about the correct compile flags to make their binary work on older systems. It's really a problem of educating developers on this issue. |
| krisum Jul 03, 2008 7:26 AM EDT |
@Sander: Btw, autopackage still does not handle library incompabilities in other libraries. For example, openssl is libssl.so.0.9.* on some distros while it is libssl.so.4 on redhat/fedora. Linking them statically is not an option since then the libraries in question will not get security and other future fixes. |
| jdixon Jul 03, 2008 7:26 AM EDT |
> Debian uses /usr/share/doc/{application_name} as just such a repository of manuals, "changes", examples, and other useful stuff. As does Slackware, though it's a symbolic link to /usr/doc. The Linux-FAQs and Linux-HOWTOs are also there. |
| krisum Jul 03, 2008 7:38 AM EDT |
@Sander,
Quoting: Other developers don't use the latest features but don't know about the correct compile flags to make their binary work on older systems.For command-line apps that use only C/C++ the compile flags and the neat tricks in autopackage may well work. However, in practise apps have many more dependencies and any recent version of any app that uses GNOME/KDE is unlikely to work since they will have large number of dependencies on newer versions of those libraries. Even if these dependencies are satisfied, compiling something like pidgin from source is quite a big task (i was sent on a wild goose chase of getting sources of its dependencies, and their dependencies etc.). |
| bigg Jul 03, 2008 7:42 AM EDT |
There are two problems with autopackage that I have found. First, there are technical issues. I don't have time to find links now, but the autopackage devs seemed not to be willing to accept that those problems existed. Second, and much larger, is that the autopackage devs (one in particular) have burned every possible bridge in the FOSS community. My understanding is that the project is no longer very active, though don't quote me on that. I have posted here before that the rootless Gobolinux install is a good model to follow. Rootless Gobolinux is not ready for prime time, but only because of lack of developer interest. You can install Gobolinux packages inside any other distro. Furthermore, it is trivial to install two versions of the same app/libraries. Installing two OOo versions is difficult on many distros. I installed Gobolinux packages for two different versions of OOo inside of Ubuntu, and they ran flawlessly. |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2008 2:02 PM EDT |
Quoting:> Debian uses /usr/share/doc/{application_name} as just such a repository of manuals, "changes", examples, and other useful stuff. AFAIK it's just LINUX in general that does this, because it's in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard: http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRSHAREARCHITE... Quoting:This is incorrect. Debian has non-free and contrib repos which serve this purpose. Great, I'm wrong and the problem is already solved. However, I still can't understand why the first method of installing VMWare on Ubuntu I found on the net was this rather complex one: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VMware/Workstation This is the one I got for Debian: http://www.howtoforge.com/debian_sarge_vmware_server_howto This lead me to believe installing VMWare in Debian takes more than the two steps it takes in Gentoo (apart from the license issue). So my question: Where's the two step guide to installing VMWare in Ubuntu? Quoting:Anyway, is somebody aware of a kind of 'Distro-tour' (like the tour in XP) that is available in any distro... Well, honestly, they deserve kudos for that. At least in my opinion. Every distro which (partially) aims at the computer illiterates should provide one. Quoting:Rootless Gobolinux is not ready for prime time, but only because of lack of developer interest. You can install Gobolinux packages inside any other distro. Furthermore, it is trivial to install two versions of the same app/libraries I'd say: Superseded by Klik(2) these days, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klik_(packaging) which offers the same features and more. In fact it's (also?) a protocol which tools like Konqueror can recognize (like media:/ ). And the best thing is, because 1 app is one file it's trivial to delete apps. It was mainly designed to be able to provide cross-distro packages which you can mail to your grandma even if she uses another distro, and she can just 'klik' on it and it starts. It also uses 'partially writable filesystem overlays' instead of symbolic links. However, not many people are aware of this opportunuty and it's not installed by default in distro's, neither are there 'klik' packages available for each distro. |
| krisum Jul 03, 2008 2:26 PM EDT |
@hkwint
Quoting: This lead me to believe installing VMWare in Debian takes more than the two steps it takes in Gentoo. So my question: Where's the two step guide to installing VMWare in Ubuntu?The guide you saw is for the commercial VMware workstation. Here are the ones for vmware server: http://www.ubuntugeek.com/how-to-install-vmware-server-from-... https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VMware/Server As i mentioned it is more work in hardy than in gutsy since for some reason the deb was removed from the partner repository. In debian lenny/sid it is as simple as installing vmware-package available in contrib repos. Even if these were not available, the point being made was that third-party apps not available in the official repos (with vmware being just an example) are harder to install on linux -- same holds if an ebuild is not available for third-party apps (e.g. one of the many at freshmeat/sourceforge/kde-apps etc.) |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 03, 2008 2:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'd say: Superseded by Klik(2) these days, Klik has it's disadvantages as well. There was a big discussion about Klik a few months back on these forums. It's okay for the occasional application I guess, but I prefer regular packages. The thing about package management is that Free software will always work much better with it than non-free software. For a FOSS developer it's extremely easy. Just build a source .tar.gz using any of the major build systems (autotools, scons, etcetera) and distro packagers world-wide will do the rest for you. Not so for non-free Linux software. |
| krisum Jul 03, 2008 2:47 PM EDT |
Quoting: ust build a source .tar.gz using any of the major build systems (autotools, scons, etcetera) and distro packagers world-wide will do the rest for you.I do not see this happening for a huge number of (useful) projects in freshmeat/kde-apps/sourceforge/... |
| hkwint Jul 03, 2008 3:03 PM EDT |
Quoting:but I prefer regular packages. OK, but they're not cross-distro. I wish packages were; it would be handy if for example the treasury could spread its tax application in one simple-to-install format. I remember our treasure (Belastingdienst) complained about only very few people using the Linux tax program to fill out and submit their tax return, but now I have used it I understand why; it's not a program my grandma could start (well, neither is filling out tax forms something she and most other grandma's can, but you get the idea). Maybe Autopackage or ZeroInstall is the solution, I don't know, but at this moment the package management fragmentation is a big problem. Both for the tax service and companies like VMWare and Google. Quoting:and distro packagers world-wide will do the rest for you. True, but and if those nice persons go on holiday or have an argument and strike you have a problem. Also, they duplicate their work dozens of times for each distro. Most of it is a waste of time. For example, in Klik (the only cross-platform package manager I 'understand') you can take a .deb file and make a Klik receipe. Than, Red Hat, Gentoo, Mandriva, OpenSuse and PCLinuxOS users can use it with a single click. That means, Red Hat, Gentoo, Mandriva, OpenSuse and PCLinuxOS package maintainers are jobless and can do something more useful than duplicating work others have done already (it goes also for .rpm's by the way). Imagine how much time could be saved to do useful things! Quoting:Just build a source .tar.gz using any of the major build systems If you make a Klik recipe after that, which is rather straight forward, you can put the Klik link on your site and testers don't have to wait for the distro packagers. Much more people could test (since Klik enables to install multiple versions) much faster. Also, if people can report problems directly to the developer instead of to their distro team. It's far easier for the developer, since he doesn't have to wonder about if it's a distro packaging problem or a bug he created. So it's a better way of bug fixing as well. Indeed package managers take care of everything, but they present a unnecessary layer of complexity / waiting which is prone to errors. Totally needless in my opinion and a waste of time. Those people should concentrate on making a simple uniform way of installing apps, and that way has to work with Skype, Picasa, VMWare, AdobePhotoshop trial under Wine (something you can distribute using Klik) and Free Software. Of course, it's easier for packagers if people only use Free Software. But people just ask for Skype, Photoshop etc., and if Linux doesn't provide it, they simply won't use it. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 04, 2008 2:54 PM EDT |
A correction:Quoting:it would be handy if for example the treasury could spread its tax application in one simple-to-install format. I remember our treasure (Belastingdienst) complained about only very few people using the Linux tax program to fill out and submit their tax return ... Maybe Autopackage or ZeroInstall is the solution Our Dutch tax return application already uses autopackage. Even my computer illiterate mother managed to install & run it. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 04, 2008 3:00 PM EDT |
Aside from that, I disagree that packaging is just duplicate work. Packagers do integration within their specific distro as well. And as a first line of bug fixers they can often fix things much faster than upstream can. Plus, it gives a Linux user a central place to file bugs. Without distro-specific packages there wouldn't be distro's. There would be just one "Linux" like there is one "Windows". Linux's strength is it's diversity, and it's the packagers that make this happen. Packaging has more benefits (like educating new devs) , but these are the most important IMHO. |
| techiem2 Jul 04, 2008 3:16 PM EDT |
It almost seems we need a universal package format that is able to be linked to the distro's package management/tweaking setup. Yeah, I know this would most likely require source archives to work properly. I guess the idea would be, package X is setup in a universal package, but distro Z needs to add patches 1, 2, and 3 to it and use a tweaked init script, and their management system knows that and behaves accordingly. Which brings us back to source archives I guess...which kinda defeats the purpose of universal packages...(unless the packages include both the default binaries and the source for if the distro needs to tweak it). Iunno...sounds complicated to me... |
| azerthoth Jul 04, 2008 3:16 PM EDT |
A more interesting challenge and perhaps a bigger challenge would be to convince all the developers before hand that there is a proper specific place for software be installed to in the first place. Gentoo has a different set up than Ubuntu than Mandriva. All land their software in different locations. And while it is a simple matter to adjust $PATH a single install to rule them all and in the darkness bind them, well that needs to get more than just a package management system in place. |
| bigg Jul 04, 2008 7:02 PM EDT |
> Without distro-specific packages there wouldn't be distro's. There would be just one "Linux" like there is one "Windows". Distro-specific packages are better, provided they are available. However, not all packages are available for all distros. Most distros have too few devs to package everything (not even Debian has everything). What is needed is a universal package format that can be installed on any distro. That is why I will go back to the rootless Gobolinux install I've mentioned multiple times (the concept, not necessarily this specific implementation). All that is required is that you have a home directory and you can install Gobolinux packages in your distro of choice. You can install multiple versions of apps/libraries with no problems. Then every free software project could make the latest version available in that package format. Distros could still provide their own packages if they choose to do so. |
| krisum Jul 04, 2008 10:38 PM EDT |
@hkwint
Quoting: If you make a Klik recipe after that, which is rather straight forward, you can put the Klik link on your site and testers don't have to wait for the distro packagers.So does Klik handle backward compatibility issues of libc6 etc. (e.g. if building on recent distro can the binaries made to work on older distro)? What about updates to the application? Also since it seems to package all dependencies, is it able to load installed GTK themes etc. |
| Sander_Marechal Jul 06, 2008 1:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:guess the idea would be, package X is setup in a universal package, but distro Z needs to add patches 1, 2, and 3 to it and use a tweaked init script, and their management system knows that and behaves accordingly. Which brings us back to source archives I guess... You don't go back to the source archives actually. If it were in the source archives, it would be in upstream. And it's not. IMHO what this leads to is centralized, cross-distro patch management. And IIRC some folk are already working on this: a central place where all the packagers of all the distro's can come and store, exchange, share and improve on patches for all FOSS applications. The next step would be to create an application that can automatically build distro-native packages from an upstream source tarball and a set of patches from this central repository. |
| hkwint Jul 08, 2008 8:41 AM EDT |
Quoting:So does Klik handle backward compatibility issues of libc6 etc. (e.g. if building on recent distro can the binaries made to work on older distro)? Depends on what you compile it against. The idea is, you compile it against an 'as old as possible' lib, and then you hope the new lib is backwards compatible. No guarantee of course, but in the practice it works rather well. Quoting:What about updates to the application? You have to make a new recipe, just like with current package managers. Quoting:Also since it seems to package all dependencies Not all of them, it assumes a 'standard base'. It packs only dependencies which are possibly not found on a desktop distro, like Mono. I believe it assumes your distro comes with most Gnome / KDE libraries, glibc, etc. In practice, more than 90% of the time the 'Proof of concept' (Klik v1) worked; so it's not perfect of course. But it does install apps in the home directory, and it doesn't need root-privileges to (de)install software since it ends up in a single file in the users home directory anyway. That's great, as it doesn't require a password either and every user can have his own packages and versions of it. Quoting:The next step would be to create an application that can automatically build distro-native packages from an upstream source tarball and a set of patches from this central repository. As far as I understood, that's exactly what Fabio did with Entropy. Check out Sabayon 3.5 and coming. |
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!