Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on February 13, 2007 09:04 PM
<a href="http://lambdaman.blogspot.com/2007/01/package-management-usability.html" title="blogspot.com">Synaptic has many usability flaws</a blogspot.com>. You see, just because Microsoft invented something, it's not bad per se. Maybe they learnt something about the desktop market in their history? That's called experience I guess.
Just look at the most successful open source application today: Firefox! Do you think it could have been that successful if the would have waiting for respositories to appear for Windows?
Why is there no respository system for open source Windows applications? Maybe that's because it doesn't make sense? Why bother with the boring package descriptions (and names) written by programmers if you have Internet repositories such as Download.com that provide access to over 23,000 applications and projects, including professionally written and useful descriptions, screenshots, user submitted commentaries, ratings, and other means to find the best tool?
So your first error is considering Synaptic to be usable. The basic flaw is mentioned by the article: "... unless you know what package you're looking for, basically all our package interfaces are useless."
Your second error is comparing Point'n'Click with APT Frontends based on the current Linux landscape. However, many people want proprietary applications. These application provide solutions to problems no volunteer hacker finds interesting to work at. Will Synptic scale when there will be 23.000 additional proprietary packages included?
Your third error is to assume that repositories protect from installing malware: It doesn't! Because you can as well talk people into using some third-party repository full of malware, just like you can talk any newbie into using a non-offical respoitory full with mp3 codecs and other inofficial stuff. You just need to make them think, it's the only way to get a solution to their problems.
Your next error is the implicit assumption that point'n'click cannot co-exist with package repository. Let's face it: Package repositories are great for server systems and for system software, in general. They just fail to work on the desktop application market.
We should use the best tool for the job: And for the desktop applications, installers such as Autopackage are the best tool for the job.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
The shortcomings of Aptitude and/or Synaptic
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 13, 2007 09:04 PMJust look at the most successful open source application today: Firefox! Do you think it could have been that successful if the would have waiting for respositories to appear for Windows?
Why is there no respository system for open source Windows applications? Maybe that's because it doesn't make sense? Why bother with the boring package descriptions (and names) written by programmers if you have Internet repositories such as Download.com that provide access to over 23,000 applications and projects, including professionally written and useful descriptions, screenshots, user submitted commentaries, ratings, and other means to find the best tool?
So your first error is considering Synaptic to be usable. The basic flaw is mentioned by the article: "... unless you know what package you're looking for, basically all our package interfaces are useless."
Your second error is comparing Point'n'Click with APT Frontends based on the current Linux landscape. However, many people want proprietary applications. These application provide solutions to problems no volunteer hacker finds interesting to work at. Will Synptic scale when there will be 23.000 additional proprietary packages included?
Your third error is to assume that repositories protect from installing malware: It doesn't! Because you can as well talk people into using some third-party repository full of malware, just like you can talk any newbie into using a non-offical respoitory full with mp3 codecs and other inofficial stuff. You just need to make them think, it's the only way to get a solution to their problems.
Your next error is the implicit assumption that point'n'click cannot co-exist with package repository. Let's face it: Package repositories are great for server systems and for system software, in general. They just fail to work on the desktop application market.
We should use the best tool for the job: And for the desktop applications, installers such as Autopackage are the best tool for the job.
#