Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu Dev Summit Lays Out Plans For Hardy Heron
Opurt writes "On the first day of the Ubuntu Developer Summit in Boston this week, a roundtable session focused on the vision for the upcoming Hardy Heron Ubuntu release. Unlike Gutsy Gibbon, which brought a handful of experimental features along with some new functionality, the focus with Heron will be on robustness as it will be supported on the desktop for 3 years. 'The Compiz window manager, which adds sophisticated visual effects to the Ubuntu user interface, will be a big target for usability improvements. Keyboard bindings and session management were noted as two areas where Compiz still needs some work.' PolicyKit and Tracker will also be significantly tweaked, while Heron is also likely to see a complete visual refresh."
The Debian swirl doesn't hack it any more.
"hairy hardon"
Here's a better summary of things to come in Hardy, linked from an OS News posting.
Free the Quark 3 from asymptotic confinement! Bring your charm! Don't get down! All colours and flavours welcome!
"...while Heron is also likely to see a complete visual refresh." Thank God.
You know, you could just buy OSX
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
Rejected
Reason: Linux is not OSX, nor does it need to be.
My Babylon
...as well as adding new features?
'oops' proxy, for example. Worked great under other Debs distros, but kept crashing under FF. Left out of GG altogether.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
Other stuff I'd like to see:
My blog
If you want Mac OS X, you know where to find it.
My blog
Given the way Linux users look at the Vista users, Haughty Heron might be more appropriate. Given the higher security of Linux, it could be Hardened Heron too. Given the cryptic command lines preferred by the unixy people, it could be Hackneyed Heron. Given the effect it is having on Redmond, it could be Haunting Heron.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Bake at 325 for 45 minutes. Serve with Wine sauce.
In 3,2,1...
God: When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.
Have you even considered the proposals on their own merits? Keeping a clean filesystem is a noble goal, and definitely worth considering.
Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...
My blog
Installing software via Ubuntu's Add/Remove app is the greatest thing, way better than dragging to install. I still can't figure out how to uninstall some of my OSX apps that were installed into the control panel instead of in the apps folder :P
For Debian-based systems in GNOME, open the Synaptic Package Manager, find the software you want and mark it for installation. The Manager will even find and install the necessary dependencies. There's also KDE version known as Kynaptic. In Ubuntu, there's an "Add/Remove" program under the Applications menu that functions the same way, except with pretty pictures. I'm really not how much more sensible and user-friendly software installation can get.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
> App resources all contained in the .app directory structure instead of scattered all over the file system
/usr/bin, what is wrong with that? /usr/lib, what is wrong with that? /usr/libexec, what is wrong with that?
This is a fucking terrible idea. The Linux/*nix file system layout IS CLEAN.
All your user apps are in
All your user libraries are in
All your library/executable hybrids (stuff that can function as either), is in
If you shove everything in an "/App" dir you're going to end up with a massive symlink fiasco so all your apps can find shared libraries. Or do you want to do away with shared libraries?
In fact the only thing I agree with you on is that config files should be put in your home directory in a more structured manner, along the lines of the rest of the well structured / file system.
If I was asked what things annoyed me most about Feisty (Offtopic?!), I would have said two things: Printers and all that stuff you needed Automatix for. Everything else was pretty much fine.
Along comes Gutsy and... Printers, wow! - doesn't get easier, and Automatix? I've been using Gutsy for about 2 months now and I still haven't downloaded Automatix (Sorry guys, great tool - but don't need it anymore)
Gutsy brings Ubuntu to a level where it can really stand up against the likes of Windows (even coming out better in a lot of surveys than Vista). Compiz is incredible - and anyone I know with Windows stands open-mouthed when they see it.
Heron really needs to up the level way beyond what it is at now, and become the Windows Slayer. I have no idea how they would do that though.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
There's one problem with this: Patches. One of the truly lovely things about a package manager is that it becomes your one-stop place for patches to all applications on the system. Once you leave the package manager, and have users dumping .app files randomly onto their system, you have no good way of getting patches for those apps. This dramatically weakens the security of your system.
/Application directory is a really bad idea.
I can see wanting a way for little userland apps (that are unlikely to ever get patches anyway) to install in for just one user. But for big, system-wide things (like a browser, or OOo) a free-for-all
I know this comes from the great tradition of Debian "Woody".
But really, lets just use numbers.
Or at least no more stupid adjectives.
Apple didn't use Lanky|Leggy Leepard for reason.
I love those "I switched away from Linux to [insert commercial OS here] a long time ago"-posts. Ubuntu has made more progress toward useability in the last 12 month than any other OS I know of. If you tried some linux distro over a year ago, and never bothered again after that, then you don't have any clue about the state of Linux today.
Hell"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
I don't understand what you'd hope to achieve by [1], why not just keep 'where the program is' out of the list of things for the user to worry about? I fail to see the advantage that putting everything in one .app installation file gives, from a layman's point of view (I don't code, or design).
What difference does [3] make, really? Unless you have a lot of non-config dot folders in your home folder I can't see why you'd be bothered with that.
OS X is pretty, I'll admit that, but GNOME has been just fine for me so far, but I admit I have no idea what "An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing" is but maybe Glade is of some use?
I would have thought this was fairly self-explanatory.
That wasn't supposed to all go in one paragraph. Something ate my newlines, and I have no clue how so many buts in that last sentence. Sorry, that's a lesson learnt about Preview.
* switch binaries to PE executables with
* change directory delimiter from / to \
* identify partitions with a single-letter name followed by a colon, before the file path
* change "home" to "Documents and Settings"
* move applications to "Program Files" folder
* replace symlinks with "shortcuts" with a
* ignore bugs
</sarcasm>
Are they gonna start regarding KDE as first-class citizen? 'Cos Gutsy Kubuntu is a joke. And GNOME IMO is totally evil.
You know, after using Kubuntu for quite a long time and recently having played with PCLinuxOS I think I understand now why it has moved to #1 at Distrowatch. It rightly deserves the spot.
Cleaner doesn't always equate to better, though, and I think a lot of people are happy with things the way they are. The truth is, if you came in and reorganized my desk, it sure might look a lot nicer to passersby but I will have a hell of a hard time finding anything.
frog blast the vent core
You could say that's because they had more ground to cover, but they still lag (Gnome, KDE or Enlightenment.) Package handling is still an issue and NOTHING is easier than the OS X drag and drop. Synaptic is nice. Very nice. Best thing I've seen in Linux since pkginstall on Slack.
I also disagree with your '12 month' assessment. The big strides take longer and are an accumulation. Perhaps you've just come to realize some functionality, but a lot of it has been there in one form or another all along. I've seen no great leap in the last year that I could point to re:usability. And yes, I'm writing this from a Linux b0x3n.
The opposite of progress is congress
i hope "robustness" translates to "apps start working more consistently". the first install i blamed on my penchant for playing around with installs/configs too much, but the next two i did i left basically "as-is" and i have to restart the machines at least once a day for various issues: evolution stops showing incoming mail, gdesklets has never worked correctly on my x64 system, wireless card on my laptop periodically stops responding, and a host of other issues that usually start as an app not functioning then cascades into chaos. bsod vs wsonsuiaw (white screen of nothing showing up in a window). just sayin'.
It needs to allow the use of any mainstream Wifi chip set. Otherwise it will remain on the fringe. Hard wired connections to the internet are going away and people don't want to learn about chipsets and pull open packages at the store to see if the 'right one' is on the wireless card they want to buy. And if they can't figure out how to make native drivers work, they need to add a fool proof (read drag and drop easy) way of adding the windows drivers to the system. Without having to manually edit config files.
I would also suggest it allow you to install dual boot on a system with sata raid and running windows. I want it to recognize the raid and install on the partition I set up without screwing around. (Hey propeller head, I don't want to hear about how windows sata raid is fake... I don't give a shit... on windows I have a raid array and want to install Linux. If you don't want me or anyone with 'fake' raid to try out Linux, keep up the current attitude and stay in the fringe.)
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
But I have to ask the obvious question here: In just what way does Linux NOT have a clean filesystem?
/etc/y13f4, and assuming for a moment that there is nothing on your system even remotely called "y13f4", would you know what it is for or who put it there? If every application was well-behaved and stored that file in $appdir/etc/ it would be utterly clear to everyone that it was part of that specific application. And then there is security: access to files in /etc and other directories could be far more limited than it is today, since no applications would have any business sticking their files there.
/etc, /var, /lib, /usr, /usr/lib, /var/log, and whereever you stick manfiles these days. Instead he would like to store ALL THAT SHIT in one directory (per application, of course). Wouldn't that be neat? Moreover, I support that position: it would be extremely neat.
In the way that files that belong to applications are spread over a dozen directories. To name just one example: why is it considered a good idea to have a single directory with all the help files for everything that is installed? Just put them in the application directory already. It reduces the chances of having naming clashes with files that are already there, and it would allow installation and de-installation using nothing more than drag and drop instead of the elaborate scripting systems now in place. It would also make it far easier to understand what specific files do: if you now find a file, let's say
And let's have a look how Windows does it: every application writes a bunch of crap into the registry, and everyone is moaning about it. Yet when it is UNIX doing it it is fine? That really doesn't make ANY sense.
Yes, the idea that we want full control over our OS, rather than it having full control of us, is a bad thing.
I cannot image where that came from. Are you sure you were even replying to my post?
Also, the idea that we should not strive too hard to copy the ideas of someone else is a bad thing. I can definitely see the point in not avoiding lawsuits or stale, cheap imitations or accusations that we're just copying off of somebody else.
There are really only two models for storing applications: store everything related to the application together in one folder (the model used by Commodore and Apple), or to store everything all over the filesystem (the model used by UNIX and Windows). So you get to be like Windows, or you get to be like Apple. On that basis I would strongly prefer to be more like Apple - even when discounting the advantages of that model.
I completely understand now that the first Model T was the penultimate in cars because it was made by professionals, and we should never have made cars which were different.
But you do believe we should stick with the original UNIX model of storing files all over the place? I guess you must: you are violently attacking me when I support a proposed change to the original model.
My alternative theory is that you urgently need to take some more medication.
Okay, rant over. I guess I'm just not sure what you mean by keeping a clean filesystem. Please to elaborate, so that I may investigate its feasability. No seriously, I need something to do.
Oh, NOW I see: you are the person in charge of development over at Ubuntu! Sorry, I had no idea! Well, it is really simple. The original poster would like to see a system whereby applications don't write crap all over the
Of course, I realize this represents a Change From The Way Things Were. I understand the fear and uncertainty ANY change causes. Really! But rather than simply be an uber-arrogant asshole and say "rejected" without ANY consideration or discussion of the merits of the stated idea, we could and should have had a civilized discussion why this is good or bad.
Your baseless flaming of me, mostly based on statements that I did not actually make but only occurred in your head, unfortunately rules out that possibility. Too bad, but maybe we can try again in three years or so...
You don't understand, do you? KDE is first and foremost the API to develop consistent desktop apps. KDE4 will also include unified multimedia system and that would be the only thing rivaling Windows + DirectX (and of course, surpassing it). Comparing KDE to your launcher of choice is like comparing MS Windows to TotalCommander or something. And, KDE is not ugly in my opinion at all (unless you have a poor choice of widget theme and window decoration), I think it's really, really nice with Polyester + Crystal, for example.
In TFA and in another posted summary that had more details, the focus (expectedly) is on standard Ubuntu. I'm just wondering if anyone knows if and how much focus and time is put on improving Kubuntu as well? I read things about improvements to GUI tools and apps, and it's always Gnome/GTK related. Are the KDE/Qt counterparts getting attention as well?
(Please, no flame wars on Gnome v. KDE - it's just my preference and you have yours.)
Hmm, I should go try their forums too...
The 12 month thing was not really about the package management though. I first tried Ubuntu 6.04 (after a short SUSE Intermezzo or 7 years ago), and it was interesting but painful. I liked it still, but it was more the geek in me than anything else. Never got my sound to work right, setting up a dual head system was a nightmare, various peripherals just didn't work and Gnome or KDE (tried both) seemed particularly unstable and cumbersome to use. I had it as dual boot, but rarely used it I tried 6.10 after that, which was better, but still more a geek thing than anything else. It didn't last long on my drive.
Then came 7.04, and that was again quite an improvement. It worked nearly out of the box (still some problems setting up the dual display, but nowhere near the troubles I had had on the prvious versions), Gnome actually felt like a real GUI and was stable, and performance-wise there was nothing I could complain about. I even got Flash and Dreamweaver, both of which I need for work, to run in wine. I still had XP installed, but gave the majority of my drive space to Linux, and, I now only boot windows when I want to play some new games (you know
7.10 wasn't THAT much of an improvement over 7.04, mostly eye-candy with the inclusion of compiz-fusion, and they screwed up badly with the removal of the audio-preview (just install esound and it works again. You just shouldn't need to do that though)
As it is now, Ubuntu is a valid alternative to the ~big~ OS for pretty much everybody, as long as you're not forced to use some proprietary software that will only run in a specific environment. When 6.04 came out, this just wasn't the case.
I'll admit .. That's 18 months, and not 12 ... but still ...
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Which user? One could expand it to /Preferences/user1/settings and so forth, but how is that better than /home/user1/.settings ? Having all the .settings files in a home directory means that backing up, restoring and transferring /home saves all those files at the same time. Thus, it is less fragile than storing them anywhere else.
In short, /Preferences is a stupid idea.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration. Meaning, having part of the filesystem be shared through NFS.
The different locations for binaries, settings, etc, makes it very easy to share data between a hundred boxes, but not the configuration, or the configuration as well if you want it.
Even if you don't need a network, this is still nice for system administration. For example my general layout is root FS on plain RAID-1, then
The thing is that you don't understand the original model. You seem to think that the layout is the way it is because people just threw stuff into the first place they could think of. Learn why it's the way it is, then come up with a good reason why the original reasons are no longer good, and only then there can be a sensible discussion of the subject.
If I wanted OS X, I'd use OS X. Your idea isn't new, and has been discussed hundreds of times before. That Ubuntu still keeps the old layout should be a hint.
Yes, I mentioned that and explained why. The repositories are the only place (that I know of) where they use the name.
You are not thinking outside the box. When you run one of these self-contained applications, it could register itself, so the system can e.g. add a mime-type handle entry for it. It will then unregister and its stuff clean up on removal. The same system could work for some centralized patching system.
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
Application bundles - drag and drop install, removal. /Application directory
/Preferences - standard place for apps to store their user specific settings instead of hidden . files in the main user home directory
/Preferences, they store it in a messy hierarchy in ~/Library. Just think of .something as ~/Library/.../something.
Software installation and uninstallation is a mess on OS X: some applications are drag-and-drop, others use an installer. There is no standard way of uninstalling software, no way of figuring out what modifications a piece of software made, and no way of tracking dependencies.
OS X applications don't store preferences in
An app interface building tool that has OS X level UI element default spacing when laying out an interface to help with the jarringly hideous problems virtually every Linux app has with visual layout
I think that's just what you're used to. Personally, I don't particularly like OS X layout, and XCode's GUI builder is a nightmare.
Ubuntu is imitating some of the good parts of OS X: simplicity, nice visual effects, etc. But Ubuntu's underlying technologies--installers, runtimes, libraries, window management, etc.--are superior to Apple's.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
I 100% agree. /usr is a complete mess that only made sense 10 years ago. Though I'd really prefer not to see osx style "no shared libraries - everyone uses their own." I rather like the efficiency of shared libraries.
I live in a giant bucket.
this could be handled with a FUSE module pretty easy! have a list of acceptable config files to use tucked away in "fuse-configurator's" settings and have it mount all the acceptable config files that exsist in ~/ to /home/username/Settings. the list is so that some random . file isnt put in the Settings directory.
Have you even considered the proposals on their own merits? Keeping a clean filesystem is a noble goal, and definitely worth considering.
OS X's file system is no "cleaner" than Ubuntu's. Furthermore, OS X fails to conform to standard UNIX file system conventions.
Oh, and that attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with Linux. But I guess it will be hard to fix as well...
That attitude of yours is what I consider to be the *PRIMARY* thing that's wrong with OS X.
In fact, there are many aspects of OS X that positively suck. You named some of them. Linux may need to imitate some aspects of Windows that suck simply because of the predominance of Windows in the market, but OS X's market share is so insignificant that the only features of OS X that are worth adopting in Linux are the ones that demonstrably are better than what Linux already has. File system organization, installers, and GUI designers are not among those.
Here's a hint: Only "dimwitted juvenile punks" use such language in response to polite reasoned posts.
This $appdir/ setup you mention was done in UNIX-style OSes once upon a time (and still is), and every one of these $appdirs was kept in one place: /opt.
.profile I used on Solaris machines for something like ten years that had several for loops for setting up the $PATH, $MANPATH, $LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and so on, by looping through /opt/*/{bin,man,lib}. While the /opt setup has certain advantages of separation of applications from each other, it creates a messy operating environment. You have a list of applications (`ls /opt`) and can uninstall any of them (`rm -rf /opt/$app`) using standard file management tools. Package management provides these advantages of /opt, by giving you a list (in synaptic, dselect, `rpm -qa`, etc.) without the disadvantage of having a 5k $PATH. If you compile your own software and are too lazy to create a package, you install into an area meant for that (/usr/local) most of the time. Admittedly on systems with net-mounted /usr, /usr/local has another purpose, but we can safely ignore that in 99% of cases, as the two are not incompatible.
/Applications directory and thinking it will make everything better and easier ignores the vibrant history of UNIX. I wish more people would learn how and why modern package management came about. It is incredibly powerful, and one of the things that Linux systems have over Windows, rather than vice versa. The 'Add and Remove Programs' control panel is a cheap imitation, and per-program installers a serious downside to the platform.
I have a
One of my housemates built a linux system that relied on loopback fs images, mounted and combined with unionfs. He had basic packages that would be loaded into the unionfs, and the file trees merged. Then, the only files on the only rw branch of the union were config files he had changed, and his home directory. It was an absolutely fascinating system, and there were scripts for hot-loading new packages, with some restrictions on unloading due to the nature of unionfs (which he had hacked the kernel to get this functionality). When he started talking about creating a package manager, the discussion really ended with us saying he had just changed where the abstraction level of standard package managers was and the only real advantage was that altered files were in a separate filesystem, and easily sorted through. All the other advantages of the system are the same as in, for example, debian. You don't need to touch any files, or know where they'll be, to install OO.o, you just install the package, and everything is interleaved into your filesystem for you.
Naively creating a
According to the earlier post, removal of an app is as simple as deleting a folder, and addition is as simple as dropping a set of files into a folder. The only way to satisfy this is to have a bunch of API hooks that run when you move files around, which is truly ugly.
Also, I don't think I want applications specifying their own patch sources. Large organizations *certainly* *don't* want their applications specifying their own patch sources.
In the end, this is about control of software installation: where does it reside? For folks that just use their systems in a home, you want the end user to have that control. For people trying to manage hundreds of them at a time (which I do), you really don't want the end user to have that control - you want it centrally managed. Apple has come down squarely on the home user side, and Ubuntu is trying to walk the tightrope between the two. What's "better" depends on where you sit.
Is anyone really going to miss the stupid sticky note or photo apps in the default install?
In fact, in the default install, there are no Microsoft libraries installed with Mono. All that is installed is ECMA C# and the various Gnome-C# bindings. Those are no more susceptible to patent threats from Microsoft or anybody else than gcc, Gnome, or KDE.
And, yes, people use f-spot and Banshee.
The inclusion of that more than anything leaves ubuntu open to patent threats
Why don't they remove C, C++, Objective-C, Firefox, Ext3, Java, Compiz, and the entire Linux kernel while they are at it? All of those are potentially threatened by patents, from Microsoft, Apple, Sun, and lots of other companies.
If only they could fix the hdparm issue... Since 7.04 IDE disks are mounted through scsi emulation, hence they cannot be tuned any longer... I just hope they can fix that for a "stable" release.
Ahem, "that attitude" is not a bug - it's a feature
You might want to check out GoboLinux. They're actually trying to do some of the things you mentioned.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Then Linux will never break through and topple Windows. Great work.
"There are really only two models for storing applications: store everything related to the application together in one folder (the model used by Commodore and Apple)" /Preferences idea does make me stop and thing. How do yo deal with user specific settings? I have not used OS/X much at all so I don't know. /Preferences/USER ?
The Amiga often stored files in the lib directory. Well library files anyway.
I actually think that that Linux's / Unix's file structure is a huge mess. It has mutated over the years and I just don't like it.
OS/Xs is actually an interesting idea And I think there is a Linux type system that uses something like that.
But the
Do they have sub-directories like
And then you have the idea of why not store the preferences in a database like SQLLite? The downside would be that you could corrupt all your settings if the database went south but it would allow an easy way to have nested preferences.
The real reason that Linux isn't going to go that way is because of inertia. There is already too many programs that will not work that way. What you will have is an even bigger mess.
That is one of the many reasons why I am more than a little sad that Windows and Linux have pretty much killed new ideas in OS design.
I doubt that we will see a clean sheet of paper OS for the desktop or server space for a very long time.
I don't think anybody wants to toss away all those working applications anytime soon.
Pretty much the same reason we are stuck with Windows, and X-Windows. Because they work.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Compiz doesn't work on every graphics card (or with every driver). The Compiz-Fusion wiki needs reports of which HW/drivers work or don't. That list, in turn, will help recruit many more people to test and develop the feature.
--
make install -not war
And the tradeoff is that you have to add /usr to your backups because 512KB on that 8GB partition is now local-created data and not easily recreated by a reinstall. Also forget mounting /usr read-only for security purposes.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Actually I prefer having the dotfiles in the home directory. Maybe I'm weird like that, but they don't bother me, and the average user will certainly never need to bother with them. On the up side, I can leverage it to quickly restore any machine to my personal preferences. Once I tar my home directory, all I have to do is put a CD in a new machine, ignore it for 20 minutes, come back, untar my directory, then let apt do its thing for all the applications I care about. One hour later and I'm back and running a machine configured to my exact preferences. Yes, I realize that if all preferences were in a dedicated folder elsewhere I could do that, but it's just one more thing, and I don't see any benefit, unless I'm missing something.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
What happened to 'horny hedgehog' ?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Loser.
The standard open platform is already there.
Not only is it already there but it is also shared with every other Unix.
Why break compatability with EVERYONE ELSE? Just because you don't like
our organizational scheme? It's not "disorganized". It's just not how
you would personally set it up.
Organized contrary to your personal preferences != disorganized.
Personally, I think not keeping my own personal preference files
in my own file space is completely assinine. I should not even
have to be aware of the filesystem outside of my own home directory.
NextStep style app directories are fine for this so long as they
don't muck around with sensible user data practices. Although Unix
already has a comparable fs hierarchy for that sort of layout anyway.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
43 - For those who require slightly more than the answer to life, the universe and everything.
Once you start getting larger systems and need to manage cross
application dependencies, a drag+drop centric solution just
doesn't cut it anymore. And really it doesn't gain you anything.
It would be just as easy if the click or drop or whatever
triggered a proper package manager.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Right now the biggest fault with Ubuntu is Gnome. I've been using Ubuntu since the day Gutsy was released (previously a Gentoo user) and I love so many aspects of it. I even like the simplicity of Gnome compared to KDE. But, why does Gnome lack so many customization options. I mean, seriously, with so many developers it cannot be very difficult to create some small programs that modify GConf. That should be Gnome's priority and because Ubuntu relies so heavily on Gnome it needs to be one of Ubuntu's priorities to get the ball rolling.
I want to add different folders to my Places bar at the top of the screen, I want to add different buttons (like the Home folder, seriously, it was difficult) to the desktop. I want to be able to edit my Network servers in the Places bar.
I've figured out how to do all of this with gconf but there is absolutely no reason for me to not to be able to go into my System tab and figure out how to do this with a nice, pretty graphical program.
This post may be a little off topic and I know that Ubuntu comes in different flavors (Kubuntu, Xubuntu) but when the majority of users are going to be using Gnome with Ubuntu, then Gnome needs to improve to the point where it does not detract from the Ubuntu experience.
Will the above break the UNIX dir structure?
Those of us who have used UNIX for a long time know the merits of the UNIX directory structure. There is no need for it to change because a few new users think they know better.
The default install of any distribution should not break the UNIX directory structure. If there is an option to download a different version which will be easier for new users to manage, I am all for it.
Thank you for a well-thought out reply. However, I'd like to point out that I was already well aware of why things are the way they are; I just don't agree with the reasons anymore. I don't believe that system administration is well-served by having files everywhere, or rather, that it could be better served by having files centralized. Even if you want to share packages between different users, symlinks provide a much better way to make applications visible within their own home directories without taking up massive amounts of space - and without losing the benefit of giving each user his own set of preferences, or being able to store the packages on a networked drive. As for the reasons why Ubuntu keeps things the way they are, my guess is they don't want to change thousands of packages, rather than holding any firm believe in things being better as they are. And didn't OS X start out from a UNIX core? The fact that Apple made this change is also a hint.
Yes. Unless the software is not maintained in a repository. Then the average Ubuntu user has no clue whatsoever how to install that software.
How much would it cost to pay you to just go the fuck away?
If you give me a million euro's I promise I won't log on to Slashdot again. Please?
Problem solved always use either (depending on source and in order of preference)
1. apt-get/synaptic (command line/gui of the same thing)
2. dpkg
3. checkinstall
Everything will be in the proper place. You CAN (since you can maintain your system however you choose for your own reasons) put software wherever you like. More choice is better, but you have the tools to keep things organized. I think this is superior to OSX's mass of statically linked libraries with versions scattered in every stinking app that has no central way to manage updates.
Thus, proposal rejected.
My Babylon
If the user knows that he is running a debian based distro, he'll get the appropriate package and then (provided he has some idea what "installing" means) double click it, whereupon he will be asked about his password and the package will be automatically installed. If any of this is too difficult, then the same user would have problems installing anything either on windows ("aeh .. Vista, XP or 98? ... It's trying to download something .. save? or start?") or OSX ("what version of osX am I running?... where do I drag and drop it?")
each OS requires that the user has some basic knowledge of the system to install anything, but from then on, it's not difficult, on none of the OS.
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
Are you looking for this?
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/FakeRaidHowto
If you want everything in its own folder under an /Applications folder it's easy to do with apt, or any other modern package manager, but it wouldn't improve anything.
Okay, programs are "centralized". This means that they're grouped according to application, and in most other UNIXes files are grouped according to whether they're libraries, manuals, binaries, etc. It's mostly an aesthetic choice.
Note that Windows has had a "Program Files" folder since before OS X, but I don't hear anyone singing the praises of "Program Files" even though it groups files by application in the same way as OS X. Personally I don't see a big advantage either way (and I definitely don't see "Apple is doing it, so we should too" as a good reason).
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
Making a ZIP or even ISO (like DMG) with all the libraries statically linked in on Linux is fairly easy and there are already projects which offer this. Why aren't they popular? Perhaps people that try Linux actually find they prefer a system of centralised, security-audited, version-controlled software-management, one that removes the need to go to trawl around websites to find and download software. Having used Debian systems for many years, the 'old' way of aquiring and managing software seems unncessarily backward and time-consuming. I simply don't have the time or interest to upgrade all the software on my system piece by piece, site by site. Yuk. Who would prefer this after using the apt-get update && apt-get upgrade AKA 'drink-beer-instead' method.
Secondly people that believe that libraries and config files on Linux are "scattered all over the filesystem" only point out their lack of understanding - or willingness to understand - why a Linux filesystem is structured as it is. The next time you're on a Linux machine, I thoroughly reccommend giving yourself a little education on the topic by typing the following command into a terminal:
man hier
you might be interested in this:
* http://www.gobolinux.org/
Its an interesting project, its not for the mass market yet but if they got some time and money they might be able to make it ready for the mass market.
--meh--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Works fine on my desktop. Have fun with your OS.
No OS fills everyone's needs, competition is good and healthy, as is a good vision of what an OS should be and the needs it should fill.
My Babylon
"Gutsy Gibbon" sounds like one of those bizarre sex acts they talk about on South Park, like the Hot Carl or Dirty Sanchez or whatever. Now they have "Hardon Heron", which sounds really bizarre as well.
Frankly, I give up. I'm not using a distro which has people thinking I'm some kind of freak. It's bad enough that using teh lunix already makes people think you are a closet serial killer. Ok, I don't know who you hang around with, but nobody that I do thinks of me as a serial killer or freak. Plus, you could refer to each release by their more formal names, Ubuntu 7.10. The other names are akin to code names (to the best of my knowledge). And finally, how insecure are you that you won't use an amazing and free product because people think you're a freak based on the name alone? I mean wow, get a life!
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
it made ME laugh anyway :)
My Babylon
What I'd like to see is a combination of the two. Yes, having all preferences in one place would be nice. Yes, having them all in your home directory is useful. But it's not and either-or scenario. Something like /home/fred/.dotfiles/ (or .prefs, .settings, etc) would keep the home directory tidier whilst still keeping programs' user settings in the home directory structure.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
Why? Given a decent package manager (and Ubuntu has an excellent one), what does it matter?
Here's a data point for you -- my wife's iBook is off for repairs (and Apple appears to have lost it since it's been gone for two weeks) -- so she's using Gutsy on a Thinkpad I had lying around. She quite likes OS X and is very comfortable with the drag'n'drop installation approach, but she was very impressed by Ubuntu's Add/Remove Software app, and commented that Apple should do something like it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
This is why I love Linux. Gnome fills my needs perfectly, but I'm not every user. KDE fills your needs perfectly, but again, you're not every user. Rather than getting into ugly pissing matches about who'd desktop is better, we can coexist and each have something we like.
I think the reasons for KUbuntu being less polished are pretty easily guessable. Ubuntu tends to be for newer Linux users (although I fall into the PowerUser/wannabe dev category). Gnome is a good DE for the underlying philosophy of Ubuntu (usable out of the box with little to no configuration, but able to be tweaked to your level). KDE tends to be for those that just need things exactly their way. KDE is not the default, so it falls to the downstream Kubuntu dev team to put the polish into the releases, and their a minority. Their working hard (I would imagine) on finishing KDE4's integration.
Anyhow, less of a point, more of a "this is why Linux gets my vote" post.
My Babylon
That's because the Linux filesystem layout comes from Unix, and that was made to be optimal for system administration.
Meanwhile, the OS X filesystem layout which also comes from Unix, has been adapted to be optimal for users.
There are lively discussions going on in Ubuntu about what can be improved. As I read through the list, I think, "Wait, that's already fixed in Kubuntu. Don't these peopel talk to each other?" To be sure, a lot of the time it's because the KDE system is more tightly integrated than GNOME, but sometimes it's just that the KDE app already has the feature and the GNOME app doesn't. (Didn't I read a Slashdot comment some months earlier wishing for a terminal app that would automatically reflow lines when the window was resized? I've been using one for the past few years.)
For example, this comment in this very thread says:All of these are irrelevant in Kubuntu, which can do recursive renaming in Konqueror, easy one-click synchronize in Krusader (and Konqueror, too, I think), and the awesome file renamer Krename; they were already available in the v6.06 Long-Term Support version.
On the other hand, Kubuntu has some issues that are completely ignored in mainstream GNOME Ubuntu. There's all this hoopla about Meta Tracker being installed --do I understand correctly that it doesn't work with KDE? Instead, Kubuntu has to use Strigi. And there has been a problem with Kopete, which is generally ignored by GNOME users.
Also, the timing of Ubuntu releases like Gutsy are based on GNOME releases, but the newest version of KDE (3.5.8) came out half a month after Gutsy. But that's not what I'm drooling over; I'm waiting for KDE 4 to come out in December. I don't know how long it will take for that to make it into Gutsy, but it should make Kubuntu Hardy Heron a wicked, wicked upgrade. And --imagine, when onlookers say, "Wow, I wish I had that software!" then you can reply, "Ok, here's how to run KDE 4 on Windows." One more pathway to FOSS for those people too insecure to let go of their Windows boxen.
So, I'm starting to see Kubuntu being marginalized, which is a pity, since GNOME and KDE have so much to learn from each other.
Btw, lest you think I'm trying to feed the GNOME/KDE wars here, the #1 reason I use KDE over GNOME is that key bindings are configurable in KDE. <rant>When will GNOME get this? Why do I have to invoke the Paste function with Ctrl-V instead of Alt-Shift-F3 (or any other arbitrary key that I want)? When will Mozilla realize that not everyone wants to go to their home page with Alt-Home? (Yes, I know there's A Firefox Extension available, but that doesn't apply for GnuCash or Grip or any number of GNOME programs.) By contrast, you'd be hard-pressed to find a major KDE program that *doesn't* let you assign two possible keybindings to each command. As I geek, keyboard controls mean everything to me, and until GNOME has this feature, I'll be running KDE. </rant>
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
not drag and drop easy... how do you install a package if it is running from the cd? I've used Linux for almost 10 years. But I am tired of having to work like hell to get stuff that should just work to work. I want to use the tool not build it. At one time Linux wasn't just about using a tool (the OS) it was about building and playing with the tool. I'm not into that part anymore. If I want to program a business app on a computer, I want to program the business app. Programming today is starting to be too much about configuring a million different frameworks to work together... so much so it is a pain in the ass. I don't need to worry about having to continually build and configure my OS too. :)
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I'd like to once again submit the #1 most popular feature request for Ubuntu: Can we please have some color that's not heinous brown? The latest did a good job of obscuring it with 3d effects, and nice textures, but it's still god awful orange on brown. It's like TWO fancy shiny colors of 3d poop. So much better than Vista!
To be fair, I'm a fan of Ubuntu. But the brown has GOT TO GO.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Apple has made some changes in their EULA recently (or, possibly, I've recently noticed some features) that make them no longer an acceptable choice. They've added that obnoxious(paraphrase) "we have the right to add, remove, copy, or delete any files from your system". That makes them an unacceptable choice.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"Application bundles" aren't needed. Ubuntu has a package manager which handles installing and things, which means that the second point is also invalid. Packages have tons of metadata, which makes them much easier to sort, filter, find, etc. than an arbitrary hierarchy. A good improvement would be to build interoperability into the different package management systems used by different Operating Systems, since it is technically possible and would be a nice thing to have. Also, applications can just be run from a folder on some kind of removable drive if wanted. On your "/Preferences" point, Ubuntu has a folder called ".config" in users' Home folders where settings are stored. I think that having users' settings in their Home is good, since they can be potentially all be on different filesystems and moved between machines (ie. I have my Home folder on a USB hard drive). An improvement would be to get more applications to use the .config convention.
GNOME has some pretty in-depth Human Interface Guidelines, I'm pretty sure KDE does too. I'm sure that if such changes were added to them then you would change your post to say "* Get rid of all of the unused space in virtually every Linux app, it wastes screen real estate" (a phrase I rank up there with "bling bling" on the cheese-based scale of nightmare induction)
In short, different does not mean better or worse than. It means different. Personally I have been using Linux systems for years, and whenever I'm forced to use a Mac I want to throw it at a wall (which probably wouldn't cause too many problems, since the owner'd just say "Thanks, I've been looking for an excuse to blow masses of cash on a replacement now that Leopard is out", and I am actually not kidding).
For all of those Mac fanboys out there all I have to say is this: Call me when your idolised OS will run on my laptop without your idolised company suing my ass (the "I run Windows too" get a mac adverts make me literally shout my frustration. Microsoft don't sue people for running their system on the computer they want to, Apple do so why do they come out as the good guys?)
Ubuntu's official names are the Year.Month "version" numbers. The adjective-animal thing is a project codename, and it's actually useful as a pre-release codename because the ship date may slip, as it did with last year's LTS release "Dapper Drake" which was originally slated to be 6.04 but eventually shipped as 6.06.
Post-release, the cute names are useless -- who feels like keeping track of them anyway? The fact that they are in sorta-but-not-really alphabetical order doesn't help either.
I'm going to say in advance that my reasons for not liking KDE are shallow. No, really, I think technically KDE has a lot of merit, but what is up with having the 'K' naming convention? And why does every logo you see of KDE have those stupid gears? And then there is the whole 'adapting' of the name to the distro - I mean 'Kubuntu'?!? You've just taken a completely logical name for a Linux distro and butchered it by making it a god-awful windows-95-blue adding a friggin K and slapping more of those damned gears all over it!!!
Good grief people! Won't anyone think of the CHILDREN? Those poor little dudes are going to think you need a HAND CRANK to run Linux!
I've been using linux since 99, and have been using SuSE since 2001. I've played with at least 6-7 other distros as well from Mandrake to Gentoo. I've stuck with SuSe for a long time just because of the number of users and support.
However, I just recently switched to Ubuntu, and have to say that the Apt system is much better than the RPM, at least for a "power user".
I've gotten into RPM-dependency hell more often than I'd liked in the past with SuSE when installing something, and so far, haven't had any sort of problem with Ubuntu. I agree, it may only be that Ubuntu is very strict about their software library, and that's all there is to it, but as a user the ease of use and successful installs clearly make Ubuntu a superior format.
..........FULL STOP.
Its being worked on, see Glick and Klick. There is also merit to the current system, which allows for stupidly easy maintenance of large amounts of programs. I expect the final solution will be a bit of a hybrid.
Err... there is
Not everyone likes NeXT.
Some of us actually have to use an OS like that every day at work, you insensitive clod!
Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
Huh. And you have the same problem that you do in Windows, in that every application needs it's own updater to keep itself updated, it's own servers, etc. You wonder why ancient bugs get exploited in Windows? It's because people don't update all their software.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
So why do we have a Debian Swirl for a Ubuntu news clip? I mean... enough already, it's not like they don't have their own logo.
When you feel these names are causing ridicule and are even worried about being associated with Linux you must be one hell of a sick puppie.
You better spend some money on mental health care soon...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OK, so you can't bind lock screen to [WIN]-L, it shows but doesn't work. To be fair (or unfair) that's been like that for the last _2_versions_.
If you enable compiz you get [win]-[tab] which looks nice and is an alternative to [alt]-[tab]. [win]-[shift]-[tab] works too, but compiz breaks [alt]-[shift]-[tab] which I find frankly unbelievable.
http://www.mhall119.com
And we could call that central bit of software... let's call it a "Registry" where applications register themselves. That's a great idea, I wonder why no one has thought of it before? Let's trust the app developers to do the right thing with this system-critical Registry!
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Both the OSX and Linux ways are good, IMO. OSX: every program and all its components are in a folder. Linux: this sort of program file goes here, this sort here, and you can mount these folders from various sources to achieve all kinds of neat administrative voodoo.
Either CAN be broken, but usually isn't. They're fairly consistent.
Windows? Let's see: how about we make a folder in "Program Files"... let's name it after our company, then make a sub-folder for each program from us! Yeah! Never mind that in three years we'll somehow manage to slightly change the company name we use on the folder by adding a dash or changing capitalization or something, and that "one folder for all our programs" goes out the window. Oh, and let's throw some DLLs in c:\windows\win32, AND write a bunch of stuff to the registry. Then, let's put a whole bunch of links in the START menu, with no regard for any categories already there (for god's sake, there's a GAMES folder in the XP start menu for a REASON, people!)
Completely inconsistent.
The first two are fine; even if I don't like the way they do things, I can always script around CONSISTENT stupidity. Inconsistent stupidity? Not so much.
GREAT idea.
One of the biggest structural annoyances about the Linux filesystem layout is what happens when you get an "open file" dialog from an app that doesn't respect the hiding ".". You have to scroll past 20+ folders--which, of course, are all stuck at the top, since "." puts them first in the file listing--to find what you're looking for in your
Either all of those programs that ignore the "." need to change--and there are a LOT that do this--or they need to make a ~/.preferences or ~/.settings folder and make sure it all goes in there, which, though not easier than changing those programs, is probably a better long-term design decision.
Is Vista better? Of course not! Who needs "names" to tell things apart? Tell ya what, I'll give you a great deal on Ubuntu 7.10, with a numbered version just like God intended!
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Well, to be fair, they didn't just make up the word, or if they did, it's a happy coincidence that it is a word in a couple other languages.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
OK, there was a time when code names were used by developers internally within a company so that the outside world wouldn't learn too much about the upcoming products. Somehow we got to the point where referring to products by their code name was a measure of hipness.
Now it seems the Linux world has to follow suit with this ridiculous and uninformative trend. Gutsy Gibbon? Hardy Heron??! Why not puking pigeon? Vomiting Vole? For that matter, Hurling Human seems appropriate, because that's what I feel like doing from all of this cutesy misnaming.
What's wrong with version numbers? Why can't we refer to products by their numbers, like (for instance) Ubuntu themselves do? It's pretty intuitive that 7.10>7.0>6.0 and so forth--we learned this notation when we were children and we've used it as part of the computer world for decades.
Just a small rant.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Oh come on people, I don't know if the OP was meant as a troll or not, but it is the first post I have seen in a long time that made me (actually) laugh out loud. Fine if you disagree, but that's a +5 Funny in my book.
As a side note, I run Ubuntu on two machines here, and love it - but only thanks to the fantastic Debian legacy: the packaging system.
Incidentally, one of the boxes ran Debian before, and will soon run freeBSD. But for my personal (laptop) use, Ubuntu it is.
/home/user1/preferences/settings may be nice though. Just to clean up the home directory a bit.
Most of the times an application that resides in Preferences is stored in /Library/Prefpanes. At least that's how I remember it, I'm not currently at my Mac so I couldn't do a quick double check.
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
This would also be a great advantage for those trying to set up a properly-done dual boot system. I've tried doing so by pointing "My Documents" under XP to ~ but it doesn't work well because of all the .supposedtobehidden files and directories. (Doubly annoying because, as you mentioned, they get sorted to the top of file listings.)
The best way I've found to deal with it is to just move "My Documents" to a subdirectory of ~ and set "My Documents" as the default save location for as many of the linux apps as I can. (I also rename it to "documents" because using folder names with spaces is always stupid and using mixed case when you don't have to is stupid under a case-sensitive file system.)
Redundancy is good And also good.
C'mon Ubuntu team, why do you have to come up with weird names.
Wasn't it supposed to be called Horny Horses?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The distro is not named "Gutsy Gibbon" or "Hardy Heron." The Distro is Ubuntu. the versions are Gutsy Gibbon and Hardy Heron.
Huh, and here I am thinking system binaries are in sbin...
uh. Redundant much?
/home/user/.settings, you know;
/home/user/preferences/settings would be mostly redundant.
With
A) it's hidden, because most of the time you don't need to worry about it - And these days, these settings are usually maintained in the program anyway
B) each application's settings are already stored seperately anyway.
In short,
"Women are just like ninjas; They lie even when it is more convenient to tell the truth." ~ Unknown
Assuming you already had apple hardware to run it on. Otherwise, you'd have to buy that, too.
"That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
I have been reading comments about this on the discussion quite often, and I know I have thought of it myself MANY times. How about we do something about it? It's a reasonable project, with no real downsides. If we agree on a default name and awareness is raised on the matter people would start adopting it pretty fast, as it should be a trivial change in most apps.
.settings, because it's shorter.
I say we pick
I will write to the FHS guys, they should know better about this kind of thing, and try and make some sort of publicity stunt about this.
Someone else cares about this? Sign up.
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
I have posted a comment on the FHS bugzilla on this. There was already a suggestion for using .etc.
http://bugs.freestandards.org/show_bug.cgi?id=75
Personally I couldn't care less about the name, but this should be adopted.
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
I thing many would be interested in hearing your story about marketing. Could you tell us more?
I work in Marketing myself being a bit of a techie, so I know exactly what you mean, but hearing a story is always fun.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
Isn't Windows Registry like Gnome's GConf? Isn't that just a data-base for applications settings?
Anyway, in Linux, the mime-types base is a filesystem storage edited by the applications at install (/usr/share/mime). In my system, they would even have less control over it. They'd just tell the system what mime-types they support, and it will be up to the system to handle the information -- it could even ask the user before mapping them, since its done at run-time.
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
Amen brother!
The only way to satisfy this is to have a bunch of API hooks that run when you move files around, which is truly ugly.
I believe operating systems are already doing this today for the "desktop search" engines. I don't see such a daemon to be that ugly, but then I don't know how these things are layered on Linux.
With regard to centralization, you're right, I was just thinking about the desktop. Anyway, I do think Linux approach with repositories can work well. Music repositories work very well, so it can also work for applications. I think however that distros package managers are very rough for the casual user -- descriptions are not very good, the interface is intimidating, it doesn't only list the graphical application but also libraries, and so on and on. But I was told Ubuntu has some small installer's tool for the new user. (link)
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
You jest.. but I was at FOSSCamp just last weekend in Boston, which was sort of bankrolled by Canonical, and pretty much all the Ubuntu devs were there (I think they tried to schedule a few conferences in the same timeframe for convenience of the attendees, many of whom came from abroad). Basically, everyone there had a laptop running Ubuntu.. except for maybe 10 or 15% who were using OSX. I saw someone had even lugged an iMac in his suitcase up to the conference. Apple has really done a great job in making an OS that's beloved by both newbies and experienced developers.
Having said that, I agree with sibling post about restrictive EULAs being simply unacceptable on an OS. I use Ubuntu.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
What? Are you crazy? I love tomboy, and would miss it immensely.
It's a lot of man hours to remove the LSB assumptions into the code base. Plus you'd have convince every upstream application that yours is the one true way, when they've already signed on. Ubuntu doesn't own the code they give to you, and they certainly don't command the people who did write the code. It'd be not only a lot of work now, but more work every release in the future to merge patches upstream refuses to accept. And it requires a lot of ugliness with shipping libraries (I'll cover that more in a moment) that have already been solved.
Moreover, it breaks security. Currently, every package within Ubuntu main is attended to by the security team. Even things as trivial as buffer overflows in a game's image handler will be addressed (in main). Simply discarding package management in favor of drag and dropping means discarding this universal security policy. So now every application has to duplicate update functionality, and do so securely.
It breaks efficiency. Firstly, you're effectively spreading libraries out on disk, meaning more seeks to navigate the directory structure, versus one for
You could write a silly FUSE driver that presents something similar to Applications, limited to dragging INTO the directory(installing a package), copying an app (create a duplicate binary package), and deleting (uninstalling). But you wouldn't be able to run apps locally and expect the OS to be able to apply security updates.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Some comments:
As you point out, the Unix application files model was obsolete a decade ago. This veteran Linux user also agrees with you that Apple's model is far better for real world scenarios... Unix fanboys cannot make the usual claim of 'elegance' here.
...or to store everything all over the filesystem (the model used by UNIX and Windows) I would re-phrase that asOf course, the Unix concept is that the whole application and all its little pieces are shared with the rest of the system such that re-use of functionality is minimized. But we still end up with 3 or 4 different versions of the same libraries in our Linux systems. And then when you switch distros, the binaries shift locations even sometimes popping in and out of the CLI path.
The worst aspect of this practice, however, is that everyone expects their Linux applications to be re-engineered and re-distributed by the distro repository/packaging priests. Many bad effects ensue...
* Users stop interacting directly with the developers' organizations, shifting their application feedback to the OS vendor
* Developers no longer even try to discern what functionality from the OS will be used, and what will be included themselves since there is no more boundary between "OS" and "extra apps and libraries". They create package dependencies instead and let the user or repository priests sort it out.
* Novice coders are driven away because many attempts at sharing programs with friends, workmates or with classroom PCs become tangled dependency problems. They cannot count on any particular OS functionality that is interesting (more than kernel + GNU) just being there.
* OS vendors falsely claim they have a 'platform', when it is really more like a tarbaby. They cravenly refuse to define the core functionality that will exist on all DESKTOP systems (though they lavish such effort on their technical peers in the server space). Let the package manager sort it all out...
* ISVs that do bother to write for Linux end up down Download pages overrun sometimes with 6 or 7 different distro packages multiplied by several past app versions, multiplied the several distro versions. Its a burden on ISV developers and mountain of confusion for end-users.
* Few applications are distributed and installed independently from the OS vendor and their software repository (compilable tarballs do NOT count). As I sit here, a number of app security updates for Tor, Firefox etc. have not been made available in the Ubuntu repository. I have to either wait (possibly forever), or use my CLI skills to get the updates. It's typical "repo-madness" with Linux distros. OTOH on the Mac I know I can download a package from each vendor site and have the latest updates... actually Firefox on the Mac updates itself directly with the click of a button.
It also takes up an enormous amount of resources for a simple note-keeping app.
Interesting articles:
http://www.packtpub.com/article/GoboLinux-An-Interview-with-Lucas-Villa
http://www.linux.com/articles/60133
fuckin' Aye, Quantie. ;)
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
Will they fix the Desktop Effects / Restricted Driver white-screen perma-fuck?
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Well SUSE has had YaST to manage repository-based installation. They have had rug and zypper as command line equivalents in the last few releases though many prefer to use the third party Smart Package Manager. So from that point of view you would think that all is solved as deb and rpm have roughly the same infrastructure.
But in actuality while most people that complain about rpm dependency-hell are people who insisted on installing rpm files individually there is still a noticeable difference in the quality of the maintainence of repositories between rpm and deb based distros. Even with the great Packman repositories there I have had YaST tie itself in knots more times than I care to remember. I have had to click the dreaded 'Ignore missing dependency just here' enough times to seriously limit the usefulness of the repos. And with 10.3 even that has become more difficult to do without the consolation of fully featured and self-resolving repositories.
I'm not saying Debian based distros are perfect and I am certainl not going to even dignify the rpm vs deb flamewar but I can say in all honesty that the standard of repository for Debian and Ubuntu is a lot better than for any of the rpm distros I have used. And that's from someone who ran Mandrake from 8.2 to LE2005 and then SUSE from 9.3 to 10.3. But I'll be using Ubuntu or Debian for the foreseeable future.
I never get used to these constant resurrections
How about crappy internet support?
Running the Gutsy LiveCD I couldn't download faster than 4kb/sec off of a connection I am regularly able to get over 1200kb/sec with XP. Mind you this isn't wireless, this is a wired connection. I couldn't manage to update the system in less than 4 hours, so I gave up.
Appearantly this is a "quirk" in IPv6 implementation that firefox and everything else screw up, so the Ubuntu folks don't feel that its their problem, rather it is a problem with virtually every piece of software that runs on Gutsy. At least that's my understanding. Either way, I couln't get it working at all.
Ready for prime time my fanny.
On my machine, I'm the end user. I'm perfectly fine with the current layout.
/Applications directory with 400 folders for things like awk, grep, bash, OpenOffice, etc? The big /Applications model works well so long it's limited to large, end-user oriented applications. If you shove everything there then it'll be just as confusing as the current layout.
/Applications" model relies on a lack of dependencies. It's all nice and good if it's self-contained, but gets more complicated otherwise. For example take something like Java. On Linux, no end user really needs to care about what Java is, whether it comes preinstalled and what version. If there's an Azureus package it'll automatically result in the installation of a suitable JVM if needed.
The Mac system is nice for some things, but not really practical for Linux. Do you really want to see a
Also, this "drag folder to
This model also doesn't work for the OS itself. You may be able to install Firefox by just putting a folder in the right place, but you can't upgrade OS components in the same manner.
I've recently switched from Gnome to Xfce in Ubuntu...
The pager/session management works better, it remembers the position of windows when you logout and when you log back in, it puts them back where they were.
The Window List works well. It handles large numbers of windows with ease, where the Gnome window list would be freaking out.
It's fast, and light.
Deleted
it doesn't matter where those files are. the program runs, that is all you need to know. ofcourse, there is nothing stopping you from installing each program in its own directory. like many commercial unix tools do (they put themself in
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
On Linux, no end user really needs to care about what Java is, whether it comes preinstalled and what version.
/usr/bin/firefox /usr/lib/firefox etc
You've obviously never tried getting java to work in firefox on 64bit linux. It's a right pain the ass and the easiest way i found to get things working was unpack 32 bit versions of the apps in ~/apps/firefox and ~/apps/java. Getting multiple versions to coexist is otherwise painful with the way linux spreads things out over