Still not much better. I don't want an app launch to suddenly be arbitrarily delayed while an update applies. Repository management with third-party repository support means one single process assures currency even when an application is not running, without being obtrusive.
Debian requires root password to apply updates. Windows automatic updates work from a limited users account, even though everybody runs as admin on Windows and Linux protests when I log in to GUI as root. At least Firefox (not IceWeasel) on Debian updates itself from a limited users account.
Also, on Windows I can install any app I want and have it update itself (if the developer wanted it) - there is no need for the app to be put somewhere centralized (let's say I create a new app - for Windows I would just put it on my website and hope that somebody finds it (and advertise it in some forums etc) - for Linux I would have to get it to the repository somehow).
I meant they got the mechanics right, not that their package selection is practical.
But that means that the app developer and the user must use services of a third party to give/take the software. Yes, additional repositories can be added but that is usually more hassle than just downloading setup.exe from the developers site.
Besides, Ubuntu exists now as a bit more pragmatic alternative to the more idealistic Debian and Fedora approach as a starting point.
Ubuntu seems OK to me (though I would use kubuntu), but they make new versions faster than Microsoft makes service packs. I don't want to continuously reinstall my OS.
I do not want to compile from source every time I want to install some app on an older or uncommon system.
I do not want to have a system tray/task manager full of two dozen vendor's update checker processes, each individually bugging me about how I'm running WidgetFoo 1.8.1.20.1.3
WidgetFoo could just as well check for updates itself and not have a system tray app runnin for that. Example - Firefox - when it is running it checks for updates, but does not leave a system tray icom to do that when it's not running.
I do not want each application to bundle their ancient ass directx library or ancient library from visual studio or any other similar crap.
Then maybe you should ask the out-of-business (or not) game or app developer to update its product to make it run on a Windows version that was released 8 years after they released the product?
Linux (specifically Debian) really got this right first.
Yes, until an app somehow clashes with the political view of Debian creators.
Maybe my computer is too old for a newer version of Windows (yes, I know I should spend money on a new computer even though the old one still works OK and is fast enough for me).
Maybe I do not want to reinstall Windows and all of my software just to run a newer version of a browser.
Especially if the browser is in beta - maybe I just want to test it and you would have me buy a new PC or reinstall Windows.
If you need the same app everywhere it is easy enough to either make the data format portable
Really, you mean I, with almost zero programming skills could do it? Could my friend with zero programming skills do it?
or run the entire OS from the usb stick.
This one's easier, but the university or library could have rules preventing me from booting my own OS, but allow me to run my program. Also, in doing this I cannot use the software that is already on that PC. The OS running from a USB stick will most likely be slower too.
This seems like a good idea to me. Windows solved the DLL-hell quite well. Linux could do similar things. Now, cde should be great for copying an app between two computers, the filesize increase is a bit too much for installing regular apps, considering that some of the libraries probably are of the good version.
My idea is this: a package (.deb,.rpm or whatever) declars what distributions and versions it was made for (Debian 5 for example). If I am installing it on that distribution, the package gets installed usually. If I want to install it on a different distribution, let's say Red Hat 5, the dependencies that are not already on the system get installed in a separate folder and only used when that app needs them. If I want to install another package that was created for Debian 5, the dependencies that were installed with the first app do not get installed again (in a sense, the installer is building a mini Debian 5 distribution for use with those apps).
Windows does similar things with WinSxS. If an app wants to replace a system.dll with its own, the dll goes to a separate folder and is used only with that app (and others that want that version) but regular apps still use the system one.
Or I could buy the phone for ~$430 without contract and then get a contract with the provider I want or get a prepaid card and have no contract obligations.
It also depends on what you are getting for the $25/month. I can get a plan that is $47/month, but it comes with 11 hours of talk time and 1GB of data. If I add $6/month I can send up to 350 SMS messages per day at no additional charge.
Or mix the two. For example, declare what distributions the package was made for and if the distribution does not match then install the package (and all associated packages) somewhere where they do not interfere with the system.
So, if I want to install the package for "testing" on "stable", it and all of its dependencies that are not already on the system get installed somewhere where they do not affect the rest of the system, even if that means having two copies of some library but named differently.
As for updating on Windows - you can have update managers or the app check for updates when you start it and not constantly run some updater. Firefox does that (on both Linux and Windows). When it's running it checks for updates and if it finds one it prompts me to restart FF and applies the update when I do (which is not always immediately).
And Debian updater out-of-the-box is worse than Windows. You have to be root to apply updates, which means that if I'm not there and I don't want to give the user root password the system stays out of date. Windows updates automatically even when the logged in user is not an admin (though on windows it's OK to log in as admin).
In that case, statically linked ftw. Actually, newer versions of Windows have this figured out in my opinion. Use dynamically-linked libraries, but if the app wants a DLL that is a different version than the one in the system, install it to a separate folder (winSxS) and use it only for that app and others that want that version. No longer apps can muck up the system by installing an incompatible DLL.
I don't know how Linux does this, but I should not replace half of my system to run am app that wants a newer library.
For now I can leave it like this (also, when installing Firefox from Mozilla's site, I didn't have to upgrade any package at all) - automatic updates work etc.
Don't worry, you can use testing or unstable safely.
But if I only want the newest version of FF (IW) but leave the rest of the system as is?
I assume if I add the "unstable" repository the updater would see that half of my system is out of date and would update it.
Yes, but if you use the package, you can take advantage of the features the packaging offers, like automatically updating your plugin registry to use it by default instead of the open source version.
And I would have used it if I knew that if I added "unstable" or "testing" repository, I could get Adobe flash I would have. I didn't know that, so the first thing I did was to go to adobe.com and download Flash for Linux.
When I installed Debian (Lenny), Iceweasel was lower version (3.0.x IIRC) than FF and didn't have the nice features of Firefox >3.6.x
I downloaded flash from adobe's site, that wasn't a problem, the problem was that I had to hunt down the "free" flash plugin because for some reason it was used first if both were installed.
Yes. apt-get install firefox Debian doesn't have the nice "Ubuntu Software Center" because it isn't a desktop-oriented distribution. But I would say it is easy to install software.
Interesting. When I tried it earlier this year, it didn't work, apt-get said that the package was not found, even though I had selected the "unclean" repositories.
I had to download the archive from Mozilla's site, extract it to/opt/firefox, change permissions to that directory so that automatic updates worked for regular users, hunt down where the "open source flash" plugin was so I could remove it and install "Adobe Flash" (which came in an installer IIRC, great) and create a link so I don't have to type/opt/firefox/firefox.
This to me looks like more work (and I would not have done it without googling) than just double clicking an.exe file and clicking Next->Next->...->Finish.
I have, in fact, for example tried to run early betas. It's not any harder than installing software on Windows, but it's not quite as nice as when it's already packaged in apt.
Maybe it changed since I last installed it, but I had to extract the files to/opt/firefox, changing permissions so te directory is writable by regular users (for automatic updates), create some symlinks, hunt down where the "open source flash" plugin is so I could have "Adobe Flash" etc.
A bit harder than just double clicking on an downloaded.exe and next->next->...->finish.
So yes, the Linux way of installing software extends beyond the "Debian-approved" (or Ubuntu) packages to everybody who wants to provide a repository, including closed source code.
And again, it is more difficult to do than just double click a downloaded.exe or.zip. For example - do you know a repository where Firefox is? I can download FF in an archive from the official website, but I have not seen any links to a repository.
The point is - let me choose what I want and do not want to use. If I want x264 (or similar) to watch torrented TV shows, let me have it. x264 itself is available for free and its license allows distribution.
If you get good signal and your tuner is not part of your cell phone, you should get a good quality audio, at least comparable to highest quality MP3 (most popular format on the internet).
Yes, but I need to keep the torrent open and it will make the list of active torrents huge. Also, to seed a new file, I need to create a torrent and upload it somewhere, but with eMule (or similar) I can just drop the file in my "shared" folder and it will be shared automatically. People will be able to find my file even if the file name is different (but the hash is the same).
I sometimes download files using eMule that have something like 1 source on a >300k user server. Good luck finding that file in a torrent.
It's quite comfortable for me and is certainly more comfortable than sitting on the floor (with or without laptop). A desk is better, but one is not always available.
I want that! The thing would even be faster than my desktop. The only thing is that the screen is 16:9 not 16:10 but whatever. I wonder how long it could run off a 12V 7Ah lead-acid battery with a car power adapter.
Ever tried to install the actual Firefox on Debian? It's harder than just downloading an installer binary and running it.
Can you install Linux software from CD or flash drive? Will it work with the regular package manager? Let's say i have a PC without internet connection. I can download the software and record it on a CD on my regular PC then go there and install it, Can I do the same with Linux software that is not part of the install CDs?
Linux way of installing software is great until you want to install a program that "the community" does not like for some reason. Maybe the software is closed source. Maybe it uses patented code (even though my country does not recognize software patents and I do not care about them).
Yes, but the point remains, that some program could spread its files and settings all over the system and you'll have to hunt for them just like you do on Windows.
The thing is, with my x86 laptop, I can run the same software that I run on my x86 desktop. Including games, not all of them and not on as high settings, but still, I can play games even on my 5 year old laptop.
ARM or another architecture would mean different software. Or maybe no software of a specific type.
ARM have PCI and PCIE bus available as well as a lot of other standard stuff like USB.
But I guess that Windows drivers made for x86 do not work on ARM...
Try convincing Nvidia to fix a cursor bug in a 6 month old proprietary graphics driver....
I don't know about nVidia, but ATI seems to release new driver versions regularly and still supports my 3 year old HD2900XT. And that's how it should be - I paid a lot of money for that card and it includes driver updates.
Well, if that's what you call "better", good luck with that.
That may not be better, but in some cases that is the only way that works. Linux has open source drivers for ATI and nVidia cards, but, IIRC, they do not have all of the features that the proprietary ones have.
Well, if the device shipped with open source drivers they wouldn't have to be "created" before I start making them "better" for you.
Yes, but the device has only closed source drivers that can be distributed etc. Some people would rather not distribute the drivers and prevent users from using the device than ship them and let the user use his device, even though, the closed driver may not be as good as the ((still non-existing) open driver.
Similar thing to Firefox and h264. Mozilla has the ability to make Firefox use system codecs and in turn support h264 (and even divx) without having to pay any license fees. However, they would rather make the user experience worse so that they could further their philosophy. Oh, but FF is open source, so I can add the support myself... Yea, I could not even get the source code opened so I could try to somehow splice x264 or ffmpeg in. And nobody else seems to care about it either.
I have h264 codecs in my system and can watch the video files. Why do I have to use flash or download that video file when I want to watch a video on Youtube?
I get what you wrote, but the fact is that sometimes the closed version is quite good and there is no need to write it from scratch just to be open. When I bought my tape deck, I did not rip out its MCU and soldered in a new one that ran a program that was open source but did exactly the same as the proprietary program. The current program works quite well.
Slashdot Mirror
Still not much better. I don't want an app launch to suddenly be arbitrarily delayed while an update applies. Repository management with third-party repository support means one single process assures currency even when an application is not running, without being obtrusive.
Debian requires root password to apply updates. Windows automatic updates work from a limited users account, even though everybody runs as admin on Windows and Linux protests when I log in to GUI as root.
At least Firefox (not IceWeasel) on Debian updates itself from a limited users account.
Also, on Windows I can install any app I want and have it update itself (if the developer wanted it) - there is no need for the app to be put somewhere centralized (let's say I create a new app - for Windows I would just put it on my website and hope that somebody finds it (and advertise it in some forums etc) - for Linux I would have to get it to the repository somehow).
I meant they got the mechanics right, not that their package selection is practical.
But that means that the app developer and the user must use services of a third party to give/take the software. Yes, additional repositories can be added but that is usually more hassle than just downloading setup.exe from the developers site.
Besides, Ubuntu exists now as a bit more pragmatic alternative to the more idealistic Debian and Fedora approach as a starting point.
Ubuntu seems OK to me (though I would use kubuntu), but they make new versions faster than Microsoft makes service packs. I don't want to continuously reinstall my OS.
I think I could use CDE - after all the guy in the video just runs the app as
~/cde path/to/app/app
then copies it to another pc and runs app-cde/home/user/path/to/app/app.cde
I could do that without writing a single line of programming code.
I do not want to compile from source every time I want to install some app on an older or uncommon system.
I do not want to have a system tray/task manager full of two dozen vendor's update checker processes, each individually bugging me about how I'm running WidgetFoo 1.8.1.20.1.3
WidgetFoo could just as well check for updates itself and not have a system tray app runnin for that. Example - Firefox - when it is running it checks for updates, but does not leave a system tray icom to do that when it's not running.
I do not want each application to bundle their ancient ass directx library or ancient library from visual studio or any other similar crap.
Then maybe you should ask the out-of-business (or not) game or app developer to update its product to make it run on a Windows version that was released 8 years after they released the product?
Linux (specifically Debian) really got this right first.
Yes, until an app somehow clashes with the political view of Debian creators.
Maybe my computer is too old for a newer version of Windows (yes, I know I should spend money on a new computer even though the old one still works OK and is fast enough for me).
Maybe I do not want to reinstall Windows and all of my software just to run a newer version of a browser.
Especially if the browser is in beta - maybe I just want to test it and you would have me buy a new PC or reinstall Windows.
If you need the same app everywhere it is easy enough to either make the data format portable
Really, you mean I, with almost zero programming skills could do it? Could my friend with zero programming skills do it?
or run the entire OS from the usb stick.
This one's easier, but the university or library could have rules preventing me from booting my own OS, but allow me to run my program. Also, in doing this I cannot use the software that is already on that PC. The OS running from a USB stick will most likely be slower too.
This seems like a good idea to me. Windows solved the DLL-hell quite well. Linux could do similar things. Now, cde should be great for copying an app between two computers, the filesize increase is a bit too much for installing regular apps, considering that some of the libraries probably are of the good version.
My idea is this: a package (.deb, .rpm or whatever) declars what distributions and versions it was made for (Debian 5 for example). If I am installing it on that distribution, the package gets installed usually. If I want to install it on a different distribution, let's say Red Hat 5, the dependencies that are not already on the system get installed in a separate folder and only used when that app needs them. If I want to install another package that was created for Debian 5, the dependencies that were installed with the first app do not get installed again (in a sense, the installer is building a mini Debian 5 distribution for use with those apps).
Windows does similar things with WinSxS. If an app wants to replace a system .dll with its own, the dll goes to a separate folder and is used only with that app (and others that want that version) but regular apps still use the system one.
Or I could buy the phone for ~$430 without contract and then get a contract with the provider I want or get a prepaid card and have no contract obligations.
It also depends on what you are getting for the $25/month. I can get a plan that is $47/month, but it comes with 11 hours of talk time and 1GB of data. If I add $6/month I can send up to 350 SMS messages per day at no additional charge.
Or mix the two. For example, declare what distributions the package was made for and if the distribution does not match then install the package (and all associated packages) somewhere where they do not interfere with the system.
So, if I want to install the package for "testing" on "stable", it and all of its dependencies that are not already on the system get installed somewhere where they do not affect the rest of the system, even if that means having two copies of some library but named differently.
As for updating on Windows - you can have update managers or the app check for updates when you start it and not constantly run some updater. Firefox does that (on both Linux and Windows). When it's running it checks for updates and if it finds one it prompts me to restart FF and applies the update when I do (which is not always immediately).
And Debian updater out-of-the-box is worse than Windows. You have to be root to apply updates, which means that if I'm not there and I don't want to give the user root password the system stays out of date. Windows updates automatically even when the logged in user is not an admin (though on windows it's OK to log in as admin).
In that case, statically linked ftw. Actually, newer versions of Windows have this figured out in my opinion. Use dynamically-linked libraries, but if the app wants a DLL that is a different version than the one in the system, install it to a separate folder (winSxS) and use it only for that app and others that want that version. No longer apps can muck up the system by installing an incompatible DLL.
I don't know how Linux does this, but I should not replace half of my system to run am app that wants a newer library.
Now I know... thanks.
For now I can leave it like this (also, when installing Firefox from Mozilla's site, I didn't have to upgrade any package at all) - automatic updates work etc.
Don't worry, you can use testing or unstable safely.
But if I only want the newest version of FF (IW) but leave the rest of the system as is?
I assume if I add the "unstable" repository the updater would see that half of my system is out of date and would update it.
Yes, but if you use the package, you can take advantage of the features the packaging offers, like automatically updating your plugin registry to use it by default instead of the open source version.
And I would have used it if I knew that if I added "unstable" or "testing" repository, I could get Adobe flash I would have. I didn't know that, so the first thing I did was to go to adobe.com and download Flash for Linux.
When I installed Debian (Lenny), Iceweasel was lower version (3.0.x IIRC) than FF and didn't have the nice features of Firefox >3.6.x
I downloaded flash from adobe's site, that wasn't a problem, the problem was that I had to hunt down the "free" flash plugin because for some reason it was used first if both were installed.
Yes. apt-get install firefox
Debian doesn't have the nice "Ubuntu Software Center" because it isn't a desktop-oriented distribution. But I would say it is easy to install software.
Interesting. When I tried it earlier this year, it didn't work, apt-get said that the package was not found, even though I had selected the "unclean" repositories.
I had to download the archive from Mozilla's site, extract it to /opt/firefox, change permissions to that directory so that automatic updates worked for regular users, hunt down where the "open source flash" plugin was so I could remove it and install "Adobe Flash" (which came in an installer IIRC, great) and create a link so I don't have to type /opt/firefox/firefox.
This to me looks like more work (and I would not have done it without googling) than just double clicking an .exe file and clicking Next->Next->...->Finish.
I have, in fact, for example tried to run early betas. It's not any harder than installing software on Windows, but it's not quite as nice as when it's already packaged in apt.
Maybe it changed since I last installed it, but I had to extract the files to /opt/firefox, changing permissions so te directory is writable by regular users (for automatic updates), create some symlinks, hunt down where the "open source flash" plugin is so I could have "Adobe Flash" etc.
A bit harder than just double clicking on an downloaded .exe and next->next->...->finish.
So yes, the Linux way of installing software extends beyond the "Debian-approved" (or Ubuntu) packages to everybody who wants to provide a repository, including closed source code.
And again, it is more difficult to do than just double click a downloaded .exe or .zip. For example - do you know a repository where Firefox is? I can download FF in an archive from the official website, but I have not seen any links to a repository.
The point is - let me choose what I want and do not want to use. If I want x264 (or similar) to watch torrented TV shows, let me have it. x264 itself is available for free and its license allows distribution.
If you get good signal and your tuner is not part of your cell phone, you should get a good quality audio, at least comparable to highest quality MP3 (most popular format on the internet).
Yes, but I need to keep the torrent open and it will make the list of active torrents huge. Also, to seed a new file, I need to create a torrent and upload it somewhere, but with eMule (or similar) I can just drop the file in my "shared" folder and it will be shared automatically. People will be able to find my file even if the file name is different (but the hash is the same).
I sometimes download files using eMule that have something like 1 source on a >300k user server. Good luck finding that file in a torrent.
It's quite comfortable for me and is certainly more comfortable than sitting on the floor (with or without laptop). A desk is better, but one is not always available.
I want that! The thing would even be faster than my desktop. The only thing is that the screen is 16:9 not 16:10 but whatever. I wonder how long it could run off a 12V 7Ah lead-acid battery with a car power adapter.
Ever tried to install the actual Firefox on Debian? It's harder than just downloading an installer binary and running it.
Can you install Linux software from CD or flash drive? Will it work with the regular package manager? Let's say i have a PC without internet connection. I can download the software and record it on a CD on my regular PC then go there and install it, Can I do the same with Linux software that is not part of the install CDs?
Linux way of installing software is great until you want to install a program that "the community" does not like for some reason. Maybe the software is closed source. Maybe it uses patented code (even though my country does not recognize software patents and I do not care about them).
The exceptions are a few games and my video editing software, which may actually run in Wine for all I know but I've never felt the urge to try it.
I hate rebooting my PC. If Linux can run 99% of the software I need and Windows can run 100%, I'll just use Windows.
If I have to boot Windows to play games, I might as well browse the web, watch movies and write documents using windows too...
Yes, but the point remains, that some program could spread its files and settings all over the system and you'll have to hunt for them just like you do on Windows.
The thing is, with my x86 laptop, I can run the same software that I run on my x86 desktop. Including games, not all of them and not on as high settings, but still, I can play games even on my 5 year old laptop.
ARM or another architecture would mean different software. Or maybe no software of a specific type.
ARM have PCI and PCIE bus available as well as a lot of other standard stuff like USB.
But I guess that Windows drivers made for x86 do not work on ARM...
Try convincing Nvidia to fix a cursor bug in a 6 month old proprietary graphics driver....
I don't know about nVidia, but ATI seems to release new driver versions regularly and still supports my 3 year old HD2900XT. And that's how it should be - I paid a lot of money for that card and it includes driver updates.
Well, if that's what you call "better", good luck with that.
That may not be better, but in some cases that is the only way that works. Linux has open source drivers for ATI and nVidia cards, but, IIRC, they do not have all of the features that the proprietary ones have.
Well, if the device shipped with open source drivers they wouldn't have to be "created" before I start making them "better" for you.
Yes, but the device has only closed source drivers that can be distributed etc. Some people would rather not distribute the drivers and prevent users from using the device than ship them and let the user use his device, even though, the closed driver may not be as good as the ((still non-existing) open driver.
Similar thing to Firefox and h264. Mozilla has the ability to make Firefox use system codecs and in turn support h264 (and even divx) without having to pay any license fees. However, they would rather make the user experience worse so that they could further their philosophy. Oh, but FF is open source, so I can add the support myself... Yea, I could not even get the source code opened so I could try to somehow splice x264 or ffmpeg in. And nobody else seems to care about it either.
I have h264 codecs in my system and can watch the video files. Why do I have to use flash or download that video file when I want to watch a video on Youtube?
I get what you wrote, but the fact is that sometimes the closed version is quite good and there is no need to write it from scratch just to be open. When I bought my tape deck, I did not rip out its MCU and soldered in a new one that ran a program that was open source but did exactly the same as the proprietary program. The current program works quite well.
But does the existence of /opt prevent an app from creating a file in /home/user/.kde even though it's not KDE?