Slashdot Mirror

Well, the three most popular package management systems for Linux, as far as I know, are .deb packages for Debian-based versions (usually managed with Advanced Package Tool -APT, or some GUI front end on APT), .rpm packages for Red Hat package-based versions (usually managed with Yellow Dog Update, Umodified - YUM, or some GUI front end on YUM), or Portage for Gentoo and Gentoo derivatives.

But while they work damn well for end users in practice, they are work intensive for package maintaners. There have been several attempts to innovate in package management for Linux by keeping the end user experience just as easy but make the developer burden lower.

I'm aware of Conary ( http://docs.rpath.com/conary/Conaryopedia/index.html ) which is used by Foresight Linux (a relatively unknown distribution) and rPath Linux, and which uses revision control system concepts like changesets to reduce upgrade download sizes just like git does, and which also tries to have better naming conventions for package sources, source build number, package build number, and branch so that the developer has less work than with .deb or .rpm building the package. I say tries to be better because I'm not familiar enough with any of the package systems to know for sure if Conary really is superior. But in any event it's seven years old or so and has relatively little public adoption.

For even more obscure package control, there's the Nix package manager and NixOS ( which as you can guess is a Linux distribution that uses Nix ). http://nixos.org/ I think Nix is a serious attempt at building a .deb and .rpm replacement, just like Conary, but as far as I can tell it's got even less adoption and interest.

In any event, the idea that we've already reached ideal package managers in maintream Linux is absurd. Obviously what we have now is better than manual dependency management with tar.gz archives of source and binary packages, but I'm sure better designs exist or could be built. The question is whether Conary or Nix or anything else really are those better designs, and whether the better designs are so much superior that it's worthwhile to switch.

If you're looking for a commercial product that can do just this -- but in a supportable way, and with lots of nifty features that enable building appliances and deploying them to the cloud...take a look at rPath: http://www.rpath.com./ We're using it at our company on thousands of systems and love it!

as an end user of the CPU, you don't get one, nor need one.

*sigh*

Doesn't matter, I justed checked the net, and Intel's downloadable/modifiable microcode is copyrighted.

One example here: https://issues.rpath.com/browse/RPL-2546

Why is my work derivative of Stallman's if I do a CALL to his library, but not derivative of Intel's if I do a REP MOVSB, thus invoking their microcode?

Because of the difference in the copyright licenses.

Look, I get you don't like RMS's licenses, fine, that doesn't change the fact that for this particular issue, there is no fundamental difference between microcode and software when it comes to copyright. They are both copyrightable, and our CPUs' microcode is almost certainly copyrighted. The only difference is you like Intel's copyright more than RMS's. Fair enough.

Do you have VMware?

We've been looking at this Mediawiki appliance.

For 8-10 users, you could probably even get away with running it on a "desktop class" machine running VMware Player with a static IP address for the appliance VM.

I just grabbed a Cacti virtual appliance from rPath. No installation required really - just load it into VMWare (you can also get isos) and configure it. No chasing down prereqs or dependencies. I'm not affiliated, just impressed with the ease.

http://www.rpath.com/rbuilder/

first off, ever heard of virtual machines? There are hundreds of pre-configured virtual machines out there( see some here: http://vmware.com/appliances/ ) and sites like rPath( http://www.rpath.com/rbuilder ) even give you a pretty simple way to create your own. And the players are free and you can purchase versions with multi-VM management features for deployment. So there is no hardware cost for either deploying a Linux and OSS solution or just testing it.

Secondly, it just might be time someone learned a little about Linux and OSS because dumping money into MS solutions is so yesterday.

And last, are IT managers dictating tools and they don't know about Linux and OSS? Talk about keeping a blind eye on what's going on in the market. Just the savings in client licenses should be enough to make him/her realize they could do alot more with their budgets with just a little OSS in or outside of virtual machines. And I'm still talking about this being on your Windows boxes.

I know there are still many archaic Windows shops out there so your not alone. The other day I ran into some guys at lunch who use spreadsheets to keep track of version control and bugs. I clued them in on subversion and bugzilla and how they could put those in VM's and start acting like a real shop.

LoB

I have used Linux for many years. I have tried out KDE from the very early versions of KDE/QT. However, the only thing that has always sent me back to Gnome in a day or two has been how farking ugly/blocky the QT widgets and toolkit, etc can be!
Seriously, I never understood how people could like KDE/QT. It has always just been too farking blocky for me. Gnome is so much smoother as far as the GUI drawing goes. Look at some of the screenshots I posted. The corners that are supposed to be "rounded" don't even come close. Oh, and why do the fonts in KDE look like blocky crap, however look so much smoother in Gnome on the same system with the same fonts? Seriously, I log into KDE on a system and look at the fonts and they look like blocky crap. Log out, log in to Gnome and I have very nice AA fonts. Yes, I set up KDE to do AA fonts, etc. I have been using Linux since the early days when Linux GUI was _really_ butt ugly, so I know what I am doing.

Any way, I really am not trolling here, I am just wondering why QT has never hired one graphics designer that could smooth things out so everything is not such a blocking mess. I would love to use QT since it works on Linux, Max and MS Windows. However, on Mac and Linux it looks like total crap. Anyway, I went to OS X since I didn't want to look at an ugly GUI desktop at home. At work I don't have a choice, but at home I do, so I replaced two laptops and two desktops with Intel-Based Macs and have been a happy camper. I _really_ wanted to just find a Linux that looked halfway-decent (Gnome for me) ___and___ supported the hardware I needed.

Oh, by the way, I think Gnome since 2.x as looked pretty nice. Nice rounded corners, softness, etc. I Just never understood why KDE/QT always felt like this big blocky GUI to me. Oh well, "To Each His Own".

1. APT
2. portage
3. yast
4. .tgz (slackware pseudo-package management)

If I could get my WiFi to work under Linux, then I'd go the VM route. I do use VM server to do rPath development; I've got a Conary repository and a build box running all the time, and test boxes come and go like pop songs.

1. Zenoss
2. Qumranet
3. rPath
4. Simula Lab
5. MontaVista Software
6. SugarCRM
7. OpenAir
8. Themis Computer
9. Scalix
10. Incumbents and Dealmakers (non-entry)

class MyProgram(PackageRecipe):
    name = 'myprogram'
    version = '1.0'
    buildRequires = [ 'somelib:devel' ]
    def setup(r):
        r.addArchive('http://example.com/%(name)s-%(versio n)s.tar.gz')
        r.Configure()
        r.Make()
        r.MakeInstall()

class MyProgram(AutoPackageRecipe):
    name = 'myprogram'
    version = '1.0'
    buildRequires = [ 'somelib:devel' ]
    def unpack(r):
        r.addArchive('http://example.com/%(name)s-%(versio n)s.tar.gz')

Yes, I'm a corporate shill, but rPath's rBuilder tools are specifically designed to do what the poster is asking: manage appliances based on Linux: http://www.rpath.com/

I don't work for them and haven't used their product much, but there's a company called R-Path (founded by former Red Hat early employees) that seems like its designed for "appliances" just like yours.

The idea is that you build your platform on thier system, then you add your programs on top. The system merges updates from them and your system and places it onto the target system. The system they've built is called Conary. Conary itself is Free Software, but RPath sells services along with it that seem attractive.

It looks very well put together and if I were looking at building an appliance, it's certainly something I'd be considering.

http://www.rpath.com

Instead of virtualizing the whole OS, just virtualize their work application, if possible.
http://www.rpath.com/corp/

People become more efficient, get a lot more work done, and can't screw around on the net playing with other un-needed features of the OS that inherently comes with a full OS install.

I'll be there with my company, rPath Inc., and we'll be showing off rBuilder Online; our tool to create software appliance images based on rPath Linux, and our open source project that drives it all, Conary.

It may or may not be a direct solution to the original poster's problem, but rpath linux is designed to let different distribution forks exist without duplicating the parts which are in common. For example, Foresight Linux is a distribution which has bleeding edge GNOME, but they can share the non-GNOME parts of the distribution with regular rpath linux. Despite the corporate looking web page, most of this stuff is open source.