Linux.com

Do we ever question Linux?

Link to this post 16 May 09

There should be no standardized package manger .
It just should remain open for the unseen solution can be developed . narrowing a field does not make one product better just common .

I don't believe in standardized .

Link to this post 17 May 09

Awesome post!

I rather like the command line interface. Why not keep it around? Apple does this as well in Mac OS X without any drawback. For some tasks, the CLI is just better. But for those who aren't competent with it, Linux can have a good GUI.

I use the GUI for some tasks, CLI for other tasks. It's all good.

I use Kubuntu which has a great startup screen. I think this critique point may depend on which distro you're using.

Link to this post 17 May 09

While it’s fragmented, there are some websites that are more popular than others; and some are first choices for many of us for searching (Google), communicating (Facebook, Twitter), general knownledge (Wikipedia) and videos (YouTube).

I wouldn not call webs "fragmented", there just is a lot of information, and a lot of crap.

It seems to me that package managers share the same goal; to manage packages–or–to manage software. Installation, removal and updating of software. Just like web browsers are different, I think it’s cool that package mangers do the implementation a bit different—but wouldn’t it make life in Linux‐land five hundred percent easier if we all agreed upon a single package format?

Exactly what kind of problems do you have with packages? There are a lot of source packages, .debs and .rpms. We all can tell them apart easily and the others are not so widespread.

How would standardizing the package format help your life at all, not to mention by 500%? I would still just apt-get my software with debian-based systems, and with source based systems I'd just compile it with or without package manager.

The reason why that standardthingy would not do what you think it would, is basically because people would still need to publish their source packages too and newbs would still get confused thinking if they should download that .stnrd or that .tar.gz. The harsh reality being that the newbies should not download anything at all if they do not know what they are doing, so it's not a bad thing they get confused.

Maintainers wouldn’t have to exist, and time could be better spent figuring out how to distribute packages in more effective ways, such as BitTorrent. What do you think?

I call that propaganda. Debian for an example, seems to have quite strict packaging requirements. They would not just take any package they get and add it in repositories, but they would need to see if the package has been made like it should be. Maintainers would still be necessary.

Packages with BitTorrent? If I make a package and want to share it, I'll just create a page in the webs for it. I do not have a bittorrent server running 24/7 for making sure people can get or even see my package if it's not yet well known and wanted and has nobody seeding. Web page is the simplest way.

//edit And you need to upload 64bit packages too, which doubles the confusion. And soon ARM's and maybe others...

Link to this post 18 May 09

bit torrent is horrible or wonderful, depending on qty of seeded machines.

bit torrent is ok if several ppl give up cpu & bandwidth.

but ftp on a cluster of servers with adequate bandwidth works just as well

i do not believe the bit torrent protocol is any more efficient than ftp. perhaps i'm wrong on that. case studies anyone?

Who we are ?

The Linux Foundation is a non-profit consortium dedicated to the growth of Linux.

More About the foundation...

Frequent Questions

Join / Linux Training / Board