Slashdot Mirror
Could Apple's Intel Desktop Threaten Linux?
esavard writes "
If Linux enthusiasts don't want
Mac OSX on Intel to become a threat
for the future of Linux Desktop, they must rethink the concept of Desktop as we know it today.
Symphony OS did exactly that and propose some fresh concepts about how a desktop should and should not be.
If you want to know more about Symphony OS, a good starting point is a Wikipedia article
describing the innovations proposed by this new desktop OS. The Linux Desktop Community must encourage such initatives
massively to compete against Mac OSX and Windows."
Is it just me, or does the Symphony look a great deal like the Apple Lisa and other early attempts at GUIs? I'm not saying there isn't anything to see here, but it reminded me of screenshots of the Lisa interface.
We discussed this earlier this week when Dvorak trie d to piss on everyone's parade with the same opinion.
It was BS then. Its BS now. All Apple on x86 does is give street cred to the idea of switching away from the Bitch from Redmond. Eveeryone else benefits at that point.
In other news - the sun shines, the earth rotetes, life goes on.
After all, Intel OS X will probably only run on Apple computers (although I think there will be a hacked version, possibly using OpenDarwin, for the pirate market). And while OS X is a damn nice desktop OS, it doesn't really cater to the same audience as Linux. I use Linux only on my Mac, not only because it performs better, but because the apps I wanted to use all work in X11, but not all of them are ported to Aqua.
By the standard applied above Win XP's 'package manager' isn't ready for the desktop
Ok, for one, that's just putting words in my mouth. I never said that any package systems "were not ready for the desktop". I said that package systems create a dependency hell in complex systems that's just as bad as DLL Hell.
Secondly, my post pointed out that Windows tends to fall flat with mislinked associations, broken application, and other "minor" issues that are quite annoying to users.
Thirdly, *what* Windows XP package manager? The closest thing Microsoft has to such a beast is the MSI format. And that's not so much a package format (where package format is defined as a standard structure to track dependencies and thus maintain system integrity) as it is a standardized installer archive. And even then, I've met a couple of programs that I couldn't install because something was screwed up in the checks done by the MSI or Installer program.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I don't understand why everyone seems to think KDE and Gnome are so unusable. They both seem very usable to me. In fact, I get around more easily in KDE than OS X. OS X is just more "pretty." I prefer KDE to Gnome, but I can certainly use Gnome just fine. Why do so many people buy into the OS X hype? Not that OS X sucks.. not by a long shot. I use it every day and enjoy it (love would be an exagerartion). Really though.. what makes desktop linux so bad? Everybody I know who has tried and taken the time to learn it ends up enjoying it. It's only those not willing to try or don't want to learn something new that say it sucks.
I've thought about this occasionally. I'd agree that a monolithic repository system is not the way to go. It still doesn't solve the problem of being able to just download a piece of software and just being able to install it without problems. Debian fares no better than RPM-based distros in this respect, and installing core packages is no problem on either of the existing distros' architectures.
A solution that seems to make the most sense to me, which nobody seems to have tried yet, is the following:
Don't rely on one big repository (e.g. debian, gentoo, etc.) but also don't make the whole thing file-based like in OSX. Do keep repositories if you want, but in addition to having a bunch of basic repositories, (e.g. Ubuntu vs. Debian Unstable) you also put information not only on what other packages are required, but also how to get those other packages into each package.
For example, this could be done by pointing to a bunch of mirrored URLs that point to some XML data describing the package at that mirror. The installer could pick the most recent version, choose the fastest mirror, whatever.
Additionally, some sort of 'compound packages' would be useful. That way, you can ship rare libraries directly with the application. They may or may not be installed once downloaded, depending if you've already got the same or a newer version of them on your system. This could be especially helpful for systems that don't have internet connectivity. (gasp!)
Sure, it's not perfect, but it beats RPMs (I use SUSE so I experience this myself) and the debian system any day, because you can just go and download packages off the internet and install them, without having to go and hunt for the dependencies yourself. Most likely whoever made the package actually had the necessary libraries installed (and the package system can remember where he got them from!) so all that is needed is to convey that information to the user's system.
The case where it breaks down is of course when all the mirrors eventually die, for example if a package ends up becoming unmaintained. But if it's not been updated for that long, it and its dependencies could be added to the various monolithic repositories. I'm sure organisations would pop up that would keep 'dead' packages around for people to use. The way to combat this would be to have as much redundancy as possible, of course.
I don't know. It might just work better than what we've got at the moment?
~phil