Since when does Linux software installation suck?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Jan 28, 2011 5:49 PM EDT |
Linux software installation in all the major distros is simple, point and click one stop shopping if you like the GUI and very well established command line tools if you don't. I can see distros wanting to end duplication of effort and I can see why they would want to stop spending time and resources reinventing the wheel. A unified installer makes sense from a financial standpoint. It isn't needed because software installation "sucks". The fact that there are different package managers is often pointed to as oh-so-confusing by know-it-all Linux pundits. They forget that most users, both sophisticated Linux gurus and newcomers, just don't distro hop all the time. They find one they like and generally stick with it. Maybe they have two or three they know out of curiosity. Software installation is usually a non-issue. You know who else benefits from this if it really happens? Commercial, proprietary software vendors who often cry and moan about the need to have different packages for different distros. Often that is an excuse for not supporting Linux. Well... it really is mainly just an excuse. They will come up with a different one if they don't want to support Linux or feel they must bow down at the alter in Redmond to make money. Heck, if one or two more ISVs bring popular apps to Linux as a result of this (and I am not holding my breath) maybe it will be a good thing if it helps Linux adoption. I just can't get excited about this. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 28, 2011 6:04 PM EDT |
Sane package management is Linux's killer feature. |
| caitlyn Jan 28, 2011 6:06 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sane package management is Linux's killer feature.You are so right. That still doesn't stop me from seeing articles week in and week out that claim how much it sucks. I don't get it... |
| tracyanne Jan 28, 2011 6:11 PM EDT |
Quoting:You know who else benefits from this if it really happens? Commercial, proprietary software vendors who often cry and moan about the need to have different packages for different distros. Often that is an excuse for not supporting Linux. Well... it really is mainly just an excuse. They will come up with a different one if they don't want to support Linux or feel they must bow down at the alter in Redmond to make money. Exactly. Mind you if the major Linux vendors can get together and make it easy for the above mentioned to support one package manager, or none (because the package management systems are smart enough to handle it) then they start to look like the naked emporer. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 28, 2011 6:27 PM EDT |
If software vendors are so freaked out by the huge number of distros, they can always elect to package for a few and not a lot. |
| helios Jan 28, 2011 6:44 PM EDT |
As it has been alluded to...the "difficulty" in installing linux application packages is a myth. I think this is just another "we need to be more like Windows" thing. Get all your packages in the wild and spin the security wheel of fortune? No thanks. I have hundreds of 12-16 year old kids understanding package management in their distros within a few minutes. |
| tracyanne Jan 28, 2011 7:15 PM EDT |
Quoting:they can always elect to package for a few and not a lot. supporting Windows Mac and Ubuntu would cover a lot more Linux ground than some currently do, and given that supporting Ubuntu means supporting another 20? distributions, that's probably a lot of ground. |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 28, 2011 7:40 PM EDT |
I'm not a packaging expert, but don't packages usually call for dependencies that are not exact versions but "at least as new as" a certain version? That would make the packages (and/or binaries) at least a bit more universal. |
| tracyanne Jan 28, 2011 8:39 PM EDT |
Of course working in with the packagers would be even better. But Proprietary software distributors suffer from NIH (Not Invented Here). |
| skelband Jan 28, 2011 8:50 PM EDT |
My reaction was that this was an effort to bring the RPM and DEB camps together. I don't think anyone actually thinks that the Installer issue is that big of a deal: I much prefer the more integrated approach as apposed to the "roll-your own or use InstallShield" approach that Windows software uses. I personally agree that the time is right to try and bridge this gap as I don't ultimately think that anyone benefits from the two-system status quo. The advantages/disadvantages of both are well known and documented. The other main focus seems that Canonical has been developing their Installer eco-system and others want to get in on the same action :) |
| Steven_Rosenber Jan 28, 2011 9:47 PM EDT |
I'm back in Debian now, using Aptitude for the most part, but during my time in Fedora, I grew to really like Yum. |
| tqk Jan 28, 2011 10:48 PM EDT |
I just spent a couple of days installing, then re-installing (to make it perfect, since I had time), aptosid for a clueless luser (because I think it's the most bleeding edge stuff out there). He said he just wanted it to dual boot the existing WinXP and Linux. Done. Seemed fine to me, but I didn't bother to look at XP more than to confirm it still works/boots. I don't fscking care about Win*. It turns out that his XP is infected with spyware which disables IE. He wants to steal connectivity from unsecured wifi routers next door (which I abhor, but that's his bailywick, not mine). aptosid comes with Ceni, which is not as pointy clicky as *buntu's Network Manager. It flummoxes him. He wants his money back. I tell him no, wipe and re-install WinXP, and I'll re-install a Linux w NM. I was doing the guy a favour, and it still blew up in my face. VERY often, it's mis-communication and inflated assumptions on both our parts. I've done this stuff for many others who love it, and never go back to Win*, but there's many out there who believe they need to be running Win* because zune.com (eg.) only works in Win*. No, all it needs is azureus, ffs. I hate this life. Natural selection should be saving both of us from this !@#$. |
| tracyanne Jan 28, 2011 11:04 PM EDT |
Quoting:He wants to steal connectivity from unsecured wifi routers next door (which I abhor, but that's his bailywick, not mine).[ The moment I discovered that, I would have walked away. Let him sort out how where and when hegets his freenies. In addition I'd have contacted the people next dor and explained to them what's going on, so they can choose. |
| tqk Jan 28, 2011 11:12 PM EDT |
Quoting:The moment I discovered that, I would have walked away.Some people do that on purpose (leave their routers open). It's a "nice community" sort of thing. It's impossible to educate that sort about botnets and spam spewers. They think they're being nice communitarians by leaving it open to others. Sigh. |
| caitlyn Jan 29, 2011 1:14 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm not a packaging expert, but don't packages usually call for dependencies that are not exact versions but "at least as new as" a certain version? Usually, yes. That isn't always true. It depends on how the application is written and what changes are made in newer versions of the libraries it depends on. BTW, there is a standard for Linux packaging. The LSB calls for RPM. That is what most of the popular server/business oriented distros use. Of course, what front end is used is not standardized. Quoting:supporting Windows Mac and Ubuntu would cover a lot more Linux ground than some currently do, Supporting Windows, Mac and Greenie (or some other really obscure distro) would be more than what some do. To many ISVs Linux is a swear word. It isn't what they know or are used to and they have no expertise on staff. BTW, Ubuntu has mind share and a dominant place in the consumer retail market, whch happens to be the market where Linux is weakest and where there is the least potential for ISVs to make money. Both the corporate server room and desktop/workstation are dominated by Red Hat. Corporate customers often want commercial support, too. If q company wants to make money at Linux then Red Hat and it's clones (Oracle, CentOS, Scientific Linux, Atomic) is where they should start. |
| jdixon Jan 29, 2011 4:44 PM EDT |
> If software vendors are so freaked out by the huge number of distros, they can always elect to package for a few and not a lot. If they simply support Red Hat and Debian, they'll cover 80% of the market. And the other distros will take care of the repackaging themselves. |
| tracyanne Jan 29, 2011 6:29 PM EDT |
Quoting:And the other distros will take care of the repackaging themselves. Probably not if the software in question is proprietary, as the eula would probably prohibit it. |
| jdixon Jan 29, 2011 7:29 PM EDT |
> Probably not if the software in question is proprietary No EULA that I know of prohibits a how-to document detailing how to get a deb or rpm package working on another distro. Direct repackage into the distro's native format may or may not be prohibited, depending on the EULA. |
| bigg Jan 29, 2011 9:03 PM EDT |
Slackbuilds and especially AUR for Arch will do the repackaging for you. It's just a matter of unpacking and repacking, so it's fast. |
| jdixon Jan 29, 2011 9:48 PM EDT |
> Slackbuilds and especially AUR for Arch will do the repackaging for you. I've tried sbopkg for doing that, and it seems to work well, yes. |
| hkwint Jan 30, 2011 11:46 AM EDT |
I still wonder if there was "one Linux package management for all distro's", what would be left of the distro's?
It occurs to me if the distro-people stopped reinventing the wheel by duplicating packages which someone else already packaged (but in another format of course), half of their jobs would be lost. Talking about the emperor with no clothes; repackaging stuff are the clothes of distro's! I think this year on the consumer market already, more money will have been made from selling Android/Linux packages then _all_ other distro's together. Android is less fragmented and it makes it easier to sell packages in return for money. Android shines where Lindows/Linspire CNR (I'd say the first 'modern' appstore) failed. I think "some sort of" Adobe Photoshop Light on Android will happen before Photoshop on Debian / RedHat etc. So, if making money on Linux packages and having big ISV's make their stuff available for Linux, I think Android already showed the solution. This shows Red Hat, Canonical et. all. probably don't care about making available lots of proprietary software for their platforms, because else they would already have followed the example of Android. For those needing 3d party proprietary packages, I'm glad Ubuntu seems to do a nice job of copying the AppStore / Android Market. Of course, most current Linux users don't need proprietary stuff and are happy with the current package management, so for them it's not a problem. But think how good Linux-distro's could be if all package-reinventers started doing real work, fixing configuration problems, testing etc. instead of duplicating efforts done by other distro's before, then we might see even better Linux-distro's. |
| helios Jan 30, 2011 12:05 PM EDT |
"Of course, most current Linux users don't need proprietary stuff and are happy with the current package management, so for them it's not a problem." Not to put too fine a point on an already contentious issue... It is a problem. We've tried to use the "open" solutions to things like flash and Java. In many applications they either fail or crash on popular websites. One such website is Pogo.com. 1/3 of the kids we install for have accounts on Pogo and the Openjdk/IcedTea solutions will not allow the page to load correctly or the games to be played. On our Ubuntu respin, we've eliminated all these apps and libraries and installed the sun-java packages. Even apps or pages that did work on the open solutions work better and faster with the proprietary solutions. Two years of working with both have at least proven that empirically. I don't know what the answer is when it concerns a unified package installer...it will surely cause angst and conflict, but until we can legally and safely include these proprietary packages with a Linux distro it's bound to be a point of contention. h |
| hkwint Jan 30, 2011 12:28 PM EDT |
Well, that would be a discussion of what part of the Linux users need 3d-party non-Foss software. I do, because recently Microsoft bribed bought all CAD-vendors to become Windows only; Pro-Engineer and CATIA are recent converts which stopped UNIX-support. So I agree to Caitlyn: Current package management doesn't suck, but from an enterprise-viewpoint, current package management is a nightmare. Those who say: "Package it for rpm/deb and distro's will take care" didn't understand anything about FOSS I'm afraid. I mean, why do you want the source if you're not going to hack? Well, most non-coders will say, because it puts _me_ in control. The very same is true for enterprises: Whenever they release some .exe for Windows, _they_ are in control. But if they make a .deb and one of the 100 Ubuntu-derivatives screws up repackaging (or AUR or sbopkg or alien do?), they're _not_ in control anymore. Packagers will screw their programs, and users will probably complain to the enterprises. If people want enterprise software on Linux to happen, they have to accept the enterprises which _make_ those software want to be in control of _their_ software, and they're not accepting other people poking in and screwing up their software, and rightly so! Also, duplicating poprietary EULA-software and putting it on gazillion of mirrors is not an option either. Why mirror it a gazillion times anyway, as lots of package managers can download it from the enterprise-source in first place? OK, Debian seems unable to do this without screwing with apt-files and such, but that's a problem which Debian should fix! Directly downloading from the source (upstream) means package management will loose its job in my opinion; maybe they can hire themselves to enterprises like "software integrators", as that's what they tried to do with their packaging process in first place. I'm really glad to see Mozilla seems to understand this. I mean, whenever there was a security glitch for Firefox, my sister on Windows had a fix with the auto-update feature almost immediately. I remained prone to the exploit for days, until package managers felt the new release was "stable". I think for an OS which claims to be "more secure than Windows" - this is simply not acceptable or else the security-promise is a big fat lie. So I was pleased to see FF 4.0bpre8 and later do auto-updates - already bypassing package management and therefore showing Linux package management at least partially sucks. |
| jdixon Jan 30, 2011 2:17 PM EDT |
> Packagers will screw their programs, and users will probably complain to the enterprises. And the enterprises will do what they've always done: "We don't support that distribution." It's not like people don't screw with .exe installation files under Windows. Half the time you have to just to get it the beeping thing to install. > I mean, whenever there was a security glitch for Firefox, my sister on Windows had a fix with the auto-update feature almost immediately. I remained prone to the exploit for days, until package managers felt the new release was "stable" And exactly how many of those glitches were Windows only, Hans? If enterprises want a Linux distribution they can control, no one's stopping them from forming a entity to create one. The existing distributions don't belong to them, and they have no more say over how the distributions do things than the distributions do over those enterprises' oh so wonderful software. |
| caitlyn Jan 30, 2011 2:27 PM EDT |
Um... Hans, by enterprise I did not mean commercial software vendors. I meant the various and sundry companies, organizations and governments that use software in quantity. I meant business environments for the most part. Red Hat has done a fabulous job at penetrating and even dominating (when it comes to Linux, anyway) the enterprise server market. What market share Linux has on the enterprise desktop/workstation is almost all Red Hat as well, at least in North America. Red Hat does ship with some proprietary software on a second disc, including Java and Flash. helios is absolutely right. Those are essential bits for consumers and businesses alike. From an enterprise viewpoint there is nothing wrong with Linux package management. From a commercial software vendor there may be but most would never have any interest in supporting little variant distros because their customers don't use them. I know you started by agreeing with me but I must say I don't agree with you. |
| hkwint Jan 30, 2011 6:36 PM EDT |
Probably because I meant: Shipping proprietary software to home-users (and maybe small companies). Obviously, that's where 'appstores' shine, and where Android is able to outperform desktop Linux. It's nice for AutoDesk if they can ship AD Inventor to those Fortune 500+ companies running 3-year old versions of Red Hat. However, how many people use those Red Hat versions at home? Why do you think AD offers free student-versions of products like AD Inventor to students? Exactly, those are meant so people can try, learn and master Inventor at home. Right now, the easiest way for me to run that version is by means of using VirtualBox and XP. Because both companies and home users run XP. So if you look no further than the exit door of the enterprise, then they don't have a problem. But let me tell you, there's a world outside the exit door too! Right now, these kind of AD programs (soon SolidWorks) are the reason why I still can't use Linux exclusively at home. MathLab is another example, they have a Linux version to try at home, but it didn't work for me. Which back then - when I was afraid of VMWare - meant shutting down Linux and starting Windows again! So, this really pertains to reasons why people can't use Linux fulltime, and they might choose not to use it at all. Virtualization makes life easier, but you still need a copy of XP, and in a virtualized environment (VBox) Inventor 9 sometimes hangs. For Linux, a company like AD would have to support at least two platforms: The no.1. enterprise one (RedHat) and the no 1. for at home. For Windows, it's only one. Of course it's a lame excuse as we can be pretty sure Microsoft talked AD into not supporting Linux, but still it shows it's easier to do Windows for such a company. The same might be true for Photoshop: If it ran on RedHat, large companies might be satisfied. But where do people learn Photoshop lots of times? Right, at home, making pictures in the garden! Quoting:And exactly how many of those glitches were Windows only, Hans? I don't know, I don't care and they don't tell; you tell me! You may care about actual details, I care about principle. If it's unsafe by principle I'd rather not use it; otherwise why not use Windows? Besides, you have to understand FF4.0beta on this system is installed as user, and not as root. So any Javascript-exploit may alter system files. I was susceptible to at least one such an exploit, which for me is enough reason not to wait for the slow package management. Apart from that, believing Linux browsers are not prone to exploits is believing in fairytales. If an exploit is found and within a day a patch is made available by the developers of the application, I don't want to wait for over a week before it's available! I have to admit I will install any Flash-cr.. Adobe throws at me, if they deem it safer than the last version. However, currently I can't do it within a day without bypassing the package manager. And if you care about actual details, FF4.0bpre11 isn't in the package manager even yet! Of course, I might chown those FF4 files to root, but then I'd have to update manually (FF-auto update doesn't work anymore it seems, since it's not able to ask for a root pw) which one might forget. And not all exploits would have to change files I think. It's not that Linux software installation sucks, I think it's great! But it could be so much better. Instead of four distro's working four days on testing if a security fix doesn't cause the system to become unstable, from a users perspective it would be better if those four distro's worked together and brought back the 'vulnerable' time to only one day! And then there's reality. Well, one can dream, isn't it? BTW If I made packages of ready to assemble furniture and resold those packages to IKEA (acting as their supplier), I wouldn't be happy if they replaced my bolts and nuts, changed the manual and the logo's on the case, because if it fails it makes me look bad. For those furniture, physic distribution is needed, but not for software. So why not directly link the IKEA-warehouse directly to my warehouse? Why 'copy' all my stuff to the IKEA-warehouse? And now suppose there were eight different IKEA's, then all my furniture would end up differently! Why? Can't the darn 8 different IKEA's agree on one shared warehouse which they manage together? Wouldn't that be cheaper for the end-consumers, be a more efficient use of scarce labour, and result in better overall quality? |
| jdixon Jan 30, 2011 7:07 PM EDT |
> For Windows, it's only one. Not really. Any company still has to support XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Many may choose to still support 2000. And the changes between XP and Vista were as significant as the differences between distributions in Linux. > ..which for me is enough reason not to wait for the slow package management. Hans, Slackware usually has a Firefox update out within 24 hours after it's released. That's not slow. And the upstream download you're talking about is exactly how sbopkg works. It downloads the source or binary package directly from the upstream provider and repackages it on the fly. |
| tracyanne Jan 30, 2011 7:10 PM EDT |
I'm using Ubuntu, and I get my security updates of Firefox withing 24 hours... not the main repository to be sure, but neverthe less. I simply installed Ubuntu Tweak and linked to the appropriate PPA. |
| hkwint Jan 30, 2011 7:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:Not really. Any company still has to support XP, Vista, and Windows 7. Doh, there's also RHEL 3, RHEL 4, RHEL 5 etc, of course they're different over time. It's not like there's any difference. What I mean is, Windows 7 is used currently (at the same time for argument's sake to stop the nonsensical XP/Vista/7 comments, and moreover, of course companies don't have to support them all!) both for enterprise desktops and home users. I'm sure you already understood. sbopkg is almost there (why repackage it on the fly if it's directly from upstream in first place? Then you can "download it on the fly" as well!), but it's not what most distro's are using. And if some distro ships updates within 24 hours, then why not directly use it from upstream without any interference from the distro in any kind? See, nearly there! I mean, with the new Mozilla system I can install updates at the same time they are to _any_ distro. The drawback is before you know it, you have a Windows-system where 20 apps beg to update, but luckily in Firefox this is done "invisibly" without asking, a bit like using the average -q switch. |
| bigg Jan 30, 2011 8:49 PM EDT |
Firefox is not the best example. If you install the Mozilla build, you can start Firefox as root and it will update automatically, just like in Windows. |
| jdixon Jan 30, 2011 10:31 PM EDT |
> ...why repackage it on the fly if it's directly from upstream in first place? So that updates, removal, reinstall, or repair can be handled by the distribution's package tools. |
| hkwint Jan 31, 2011 6:24 AM EDT |
jd: Windows can do that - apart from the updates maybe - without any repackaging. Mozilla shows it can do updates without package manager. But enough about what lacks, what would be nice is too have some central repository shared by Linux distro's, where the package is in control of the developer of the application. If apt does A, rpm does B and some other does C, then design something which does A, B and C. Of course, probably not going to happen because most of the time teams who're doing redundant work are not going to admit it. |
| jdixon Jan 31, 2011 7:14 AM EDT |
> ...what would be nice is too have some central repository shared by Linux distro's, where the package is in control of the developer of the application. Hans, anyone can set up a deb/rpm/tgz repository and give directions for adding it to your distribution. Skype used to do that: http://forum.skype.com/index.php?showtopic=29679 , and I believe that is what Canonical is trying to accomplish with their "Partner Repositories". What you want can already be done easily. All the vendors have to do is set up a common repository so people can add it. Even Slackware could handle that with slapt-get. |
| hkwint Jan 31, 2011 9:45 AM EDT |
But there's no central place to register 3d party repositories, and moreover 3d party repositories shouldn't be necessary in first place. Linux kernel doesn't have 3d party repositories, and if it does (like Android) people hail those companies for it. Then why do Linux packages need 3d party repositories? If the model works for the kernel (and it does because lots of companies are adding to the kernel), then why not for packages? |
| jdixon Jan 31, 2011 9:59 AM EDT |
> But there's no central place to register 3d party repositories... No one's stopping the vendors from setting one up. If they think it's that big of a problem, and the solution is so obvious, why aren't they doing it? Answer: Because they simply don't want to support Linux. The reasons they give are excuses. > ...If the model works for the kernel (and it does because lots of companies are adding to the kernel), then why not for packages? Because there's one kernel (that's not quite true, but it's pretty close). There are lots of distributions. Again, if the vendors don't want to support them all, pick one or two to support. Again, the answers to their supposed problems have always been obvious. If they wanted to support Linux, they would be doing so. |
| hkwint Feb 02, 2011 12:40 PM EDT |
From reliable sources, I heard at least one of the "WindowsOnly" CAD vendors is (trying to) go(ing) 'web/cloud-based'. Which - I'm pretty sure - means running on Linux, and I'm also pretty sure it means the other ones are following. So, gladly the web fixes the "control-problem" where Linux-distro's failed: Finally those vendors can deliver software to end-users on Linux without being reliant on "package managers and repackaging systems". I hope it'll end up in Ubuntu's store. |
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!