Again - the wrong assumption that every app you need (or, for that matter, version of the app that you need) is in the repositories, and if it isn't (or can't be), then in fact you don't need it.
Pretty much any program a basic user would want is in repositories
But we don't want Linux to be only for "basic users", now do we?:-) Moreover, a repository may well contain the needed software, but lag behind in version.
Ubuntu (don't know about other distros, haven't used them extensively) has an Add/Remove Programs menu entry
Yes, that is a step in the right direction (at least they don't confuse users with the foreign concept of "package management"). But again, it's based on the assumption that everything you need is in a repository, or that you know what a repository is and can add one if it exists for your software of choice. We should think about ISVs and software that can't be put in a repository.
...Except it removes an important choice - a choice to have a binary package that will install on most Linux distros. This doesn't even require that all distros be based on a single packaging system - they need only to support it as an addition to their preferred packaging method.
That is, if you have net access to begin with. Which is, sadly, in many instances not the case for a newly installed Linux distro. AltLinux could automatically recognize and autoconfigure my Lucent winmodem years ago. Ubuntu still can't (though it claimed to support it in Dapper and Edgy). The driver does not even work on Ubuntu when built from source. Thanks God I'm on a not-so-broadband now.
a single, binary-packaged method of distribution of software
And having such a method as an addition to your preferred packaging method for the 3rd software that is not available in repositories is against your religion?:-)
1. Not all software exists in repositories - and even if it does, finding out that a certain program exists (by taking some task or function as a starting point) would be equally, if not more difficult in Synaptic for a grandmother. (Synaptic search function doesn't exactly shine.)
2. A user should not know about package manager. The task a user faces in the real world is to "install this software", not to "manage packages". Therefore installation should not involve more than a click on the downloaded software packages (maybe with license acceptance and some initial setup). Moreover, if we talk about an apt-like system, the user shouldn't have to explicitly add sources - information about a third party repository should be included in the package itself and added automatically.
3. There are various incompatibilities between distros where packaging is concerned. Package format, software placement (Suse's/opt), different choice of software that may affect package installation (in case of software that includes system services, that means for example init system). We need a unified packaging API that would be implemented in all (or most) distros alongside with their main API (rpm or dpkg on the low level, apt, yum or smart on the high level etc.)
I'm a hell of a procrastinator and I too procrastinate when I know that I can finish the task later. Moreover, procrastination actually made me more confident in myself where work is concerned, because now I know for sure that I can do huge amounts of good enough work in a unit of time.
That being said, my resolutions about diets and physical exercises have usually been more or less of a failure:-)
Being a technical translator, I've dealt with quite a few of them and created some. Some of these documents would crash Word, but it was extremely rare that I couldn't prevent crashing by turning off some option in Word preferences (several cases, mostly in connection with add-on software such as Trados) or couldn't read the document in Word at all (one case mentioned above).
We could of course wonder what he thinks of allofmp3.com from a musician's position.
More relevant question would be about one's opinion on the present copyright regime in Russia, since AllOfMp3.com seems to have been operating in accordance with Russian copyright laws. I personally think that this "lax" regime (explained in sufficient detail on http://www.allofmp3.com/press/centre.shtml?s=993&d =18191974) may be appropriate, but not from the moment of creation of an artistic work. I'm for a relatively short period (say, 10 years) of strict enforcement of a limited set of rights (that can restrict only distribution to others, but not any usage), followed by a relatively long period (say, 50 years) of lax enforcement similar to the one we have in current legislation (which will be soon superceded by the IV part of Civil Code).
We haven't heard of you a while. Artem, I'd be glad if you contact me.
Slashdot Mirror
Because only one of the specifications is really akin to a memory dump - the Microsoft one.
Come on mods, how come this is redundant when no one mentioned Gambas here?
Shell scripts are already outsourced, too.
Yes, and of course the kernel has modules for all existing hardware.
WTF with moderation here?
Again - the wrong assumption that every app you need (or, for that matter, version of the app that you need) is in the repositories, and if it isn't (or can't be), then in fact you don't need it.
Code execution has nothing to do with distro independence.
Pretty much any program a basic user would want is in repositories
:-) Moreover, a repository may well contain the needed software, but lag behind in version.
But we don't want Linux to be only for "basic users", now do we?
Ubuntu (don't know about other distros, haven't used them extensively) has an Add/Remove Programs menu entry
Yes, that is a step in the right direction (at least they don't confuse users with the foreign concept of "package management"). But again, it's based on the assumption that everything you need is in a repository, or that you know what a repository is and can add one if it exists for your software of choice. We should think about ISVs and software that can't be put in a repository.
...Except it removes an important choice - a choice to have a binary package that will install on most Linux distros. This doesn't even require that all distros be based on a single packaging system - they need only to support it as an addition to their preferred packaging method.
And if you look in those forums deeply enough
That is, if you have net access to begin with. Which is, sadly, in many instances not the case for a newly installed Linux distro. AltLinux could automatically recognize and autoconfigure my Lucent winmodem years ago. Ubuntu still can't (though it claimed to support it in Dapper and Edgy). The driver does not even work on Ubuntu when built from source. Thanks God I'm on a not-so-broadband now.
a single, binary-packaged method of distribution of software
:-)
And having such a method as an addition to your preferred packaging method for the 3rd software that is not available in repositories is against your religion?
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=223094&c id=18066246
Anyway, asking for one unified package format is like asking for exactly one Linux distro
Yeah sure, because God forbid we could have more than one package installation APIs, one of which would be compatible between distros.
1. Not all software exists in repositories - and even if it does, finding out that a certain program exists (by taking some task or function as a starting point) would be equally, if not more difficult in Synaptic for a grandmother. (Synaptic search function doesn't exactly shine.)
/opt), different choice of software that may affect package installation (in case of software that includes system services, that means for example init system). We need a unified packaging API that would be implemented in all (or most) distros alongside with their main API (rpm or dpkg on the low level, apt, yum or smart on the high level etc.)
2. A user should not know about package manager. The task a user faces in the real world is to "install this software", not to "manage packages". Therefore installation should not involve more than a click on the downloaded software packages (maybe with license acceptance and some initial setup). Moreover, if we talk about an apt-like system, the user shouldn't have to explicitly add sources - information about a third party repository should be included in the package itself and added automatically.
3. There are various incompatibilities between distros where packaging is concerned. Package format, software placement (Suse's
I'm a hell of a procrastinator and I too procrastinate when I know that I can finish the task later. Moreover, procrastination actually made me more confident in myself where work is concerned, because now I know for sure that I can do huge amounts of good enough work in a unit of time.
:-)
That being said, my resolutions about diets and physical exercises have usually been more or less of a failure
if women actually attracted more men when they look attractive
:-)
Erm, attractiveness is by definition the ability to attract, therefor "attracting more men" = "look more attractive"
Apparently he's afraid of competition.
How many O(100) papers have you written in Word?
Being a technical translator, I've dealt with quite a few of them and created some. Some of these documents would crash Word, but it was extremely rare that I couldn't prevent crashing by turning off some option in Word preferences (several cases, mostly in connection with add-on software such as Trados) or couldn't read the document in Word at all (one case mentioned above).
Dunno, maybe I've been just lucky.
I think it's the usual "Dog ate my homework".
That said, OOo 2.0 saved me once by reading the document after Word fsck-up. But it's only once in my life I've had a document so messed up by Word.
They say that they use a custom toolkit, which is neither Qt nor GTK+.
"Rather, it's given us crappy drivers"
As opposed to even crappier drivers?
Stopping closing commonly used apps!
I have a better solution: stop using commonly used apps!
Death penalty for a liar won't return the wrongly sentenced to life.
Did you take this info (about burning alive) from a book by Suvorov?
We could of course wonder what he thinks of allofmp3.com from a musician's position.
d =18191974) may be appropriate, but not from the moment of creation of an artistic work. I'm for a relatively short period (say, 10 years) of strict enforcement of a limited set of rights (that can restrict only distribution to others, but not any usage), followed by a relatively long period (say, 50 years) of lax enforcement similar to the one we have in current legislation (which will be soon superceded by the IV part of Civil Code).
More relevant question would be about one's opinion on the present copyright regime in Russia, since AllOfMp3.com seems to have been operating in accordance with Russian copyright laws. I personally think that this "lax" regime (explained in sufficient detail on http://www.allofmp3.com/press/centre.shtml?s=993&
We haven't heard of you a while. Artem, I'd be glad if you contact me.
Yep, I will.