A) For a hardware vendor to pre-install Linux correctly on a specific computer model is a piece of cake, end of story.
B) Linux works on a much wider variety of hardware than, say, Apple, and out of the box on more hardware than Windows. But even still, buy the hardware which supports Linux, or which Linux supports, and it will just work.
Not to belittle your comment but instead software patents in general, yeah, it's called a program, you can make a program do anything you want because it's just an idea. Just because someone made a jerry-rig program to function with other programs which existed at the time doesn't mean it was some amazing "innovation". Anyone can make a program given enough time, the only difference between programs are their feature list, speed, bug numbers, interoperability with other programs, etc, but they've been the same fucking thing from the beginning: software is just software. Fuck patents.
That's exactly the system that big companies and monopolies want and why it is how it is - one in which is completely determined by the size of your army of lawyers which favours monopolies and large companies. Corruption/money/competition got them there, now they use their money to keep themselves there.
You're right to some degree, but you also have to realize that the "cloud model" is more than what you're saying, it's more than about software as a service and $$$. It's also about cross-platform applications running via web standards, and you don't and aren't going to need to be connected to run them, you'll be able to save them locally and run them locally in your browser as well as running them "live" on-line. In a sense it's what Java tried to be, and of course many/most of "cloud programs" use Java, but the fact that you can make programs which will run on any OS is one thing that makes it attractive to companies. The push for cloud computing is good because it makes the OS less relevant, which is one force helping to dethrone M$. That's why netbooks and soon-to-be other computers running Android and "Google Desktops" are being pushed. Developing for Linux specifically is harder to sell to many software companies since Linux is still smaller overall, so developing cross-platform is more attractive. Obviously.
So, don't forget about that perk of the "cloud model", as much as I hate the term.:P Now that 3D is coming to the browser as well, there's no telling where the end to running programs through your browser will be. It's conceivable that there will be many entirely browser-based desktops in the future, running local programs but also on-line ones when a net connection is available.
I think more programs need to be user-land, and perhaps there should be more gradients between root and a normal desktop user. With PolicyKit though, specifying exactly what permissions users have is more finely tuned. Perhaps in the user permissions section, they need to simply separate more things out of "Administer the System" and make more permissions.
Right clicking on the desktop to change the theme is easier IMO, though less users may think to look there first. Agreed about the System thing, it'd be interesting if the default menu was changed to: "Applications Places Preferences Administration/System", as Prefs and Admin being lumped under System may be a bit weird. It's a careful balance though. Too many options is confusing too. Having a "choose your theme right now!" in the installer may be annoying for some, but perhaps the majority of users will like it. I've often thought that Linux bundles needed more "First Time Users Look here!" dialogues, like upon first boot, but once you know that info or if you don't care to know, it will just be viewed as an annoying pop-up to get rid of. Perhaps now while Linux is still new though, it'd be more helpful than annoying.
A lack of universally-standardized Linux packages making it easy for developers to put out easy-to-install Linux programs and drivers that install with a few clicks, like what exists on Mac and Windows, and for users to have a nice and easy experience installing them?
Aside from that gripe, more software development is always needed, but Linux is doing much better there. IMO still needs more/better: games, voice/video chat programs, more automagically-functioning hardware support, and in general anything to make it easier to use and more helpful for the end user. ^^
Or is that not the same thing?:P There are some money management programs on Linux, if that's what Quicktax is for, but I don't know how they all compare. GnuCash, KMoney, and some others. Wouldn't be too surprised if they're kinda sucky though, but not having any need for such programs I can't say.
Thanks for the info, but I'm honestly a lot more concerned with archiving and using Linux packages which, you know, actually stay relevant for a long time, i.e. that are universal, work on any distro, etc. Those are the only ones worth sharing and promoting. Proprietary packaging systems can go to hell.
Alien isn't automatic, and there are packages for specific *versions* of distros even and that should not be a requirement, that should be totally unnecessary if packaging was done correctly. RPMs do NOT work out-of-the-box on DEB distros, nor vise versa. There are no universal packaging formats yet that are used by the main distro package managers.
So-called "third-party" (it's all LINUX) Package management sucks on Linux, and is not yet ready for the masses.
And ya, by Linux I mean GNU/Linux, I don't want to take the time spelling that out every single damn time, so just unknot your panties already.
Yep, and when everyone starts accepting that Linux still has things it needs to work on and that being critical is a good thing, and gear the atmosphere towards one of solving problems, Linux will keep making inroads.
You DO know you're in the open source section, right? o.O
Yes yes I know that money can definitely help, you're right, but I'm making the argument that it's not always necessary, even collaboration isn't necessary, but both certainly can and do help.
Perhaps what could be done now is more could get involved with the source material, and help to improve it, and produce a better version.
Not that this will ever go on TV any way, as that requires money and so far the big Linux companies haven't done that much and really should get together and throw money into the same bucket to pay for a burst of Linux ads. Many consumers are using things like YouTube instead, but even on YouTube or other places that are popular, you'd have to be looking for this ad to find it most likely, and you won't search for it unless you already know about it, or you really really really hate Windows.
I actually had that happen to me before. Someone got so frustrated with their Windows OS that they asked me "Do you know of an alternative to Microsoft???"
Everybody just has flash preinstalled from his bought computer (noobs), or installs it himself (non-noobs).
And that right there is the problem. Your distro shouldn't have to come with insert-specific-program-you-want-here, you should be able to easily download and install it from the net in a few clicks. Right now Linux can't do this, because of proprietary Linux packaging. Straight binaries are a pain, and users shouldn't have to deal with files like that, they should be able to easily *install* and upgrade, if it's already installed, and Linux program regardless of their distro.
This is a VERY important feature that Linux needs, and as soon as distro companies stop ignoring this problem and getting off on their proprietary repositories so that ALL Linux users will have freedom by helping the community create universal standardized packaging systems and formats, this will remain an issue. You should not be tied to the select software your distro wants you to have, but you should have the freedom to get your software fix directly from the developers themselves if you want to.
If by your comment you were meaning what I think you were meaning, let me elaborate for you:
Linux needs universal packaging to make it EASY to download and install any LINUX program regardless of your distro. Linux software needs to be click, (maybe one or two more clicks), run. Until it gets this right, users will be stuck with a proprietary repository and the software it provides, and not free to easily try out other programs. When Joe Six Pack can use Linux easily by clicking, Linux will be 1000 times more ready for his or her desktop.
Which is of course why I hate the term PC, but yes you're completely right. I think the U.S. government should force the computer sellers to offer Linux, and not require the purchasing of Windows. This is a totally unfair card which, if removed from their hand, would quickly destroy them.
Which is a somewhat selfish idea, you're right. Everyone who wants to contribute to the community, but wants others to do the same in return if they want to contribute to the same project, is somewhat selfish for that. However, that's what being copy-left is essentially, instead of being copy-neutral. Copy-left means fighting *against* copy-right by forcing it to remain available to the community. I don't mind this force, because I think most businesses play mean, so for them it's saying "Well...I guess we will contribute some code, but only if others give their contributions to us too!" is something that happens naturally for them. They are naturally selfish, and ultimately I think it's good for computer users. Why? Well, look at how much bigger Linux is than BSD, for starters. Essentially, it enforces perpetual openness, and as a user of "free software", I obviously have no problem with that! ^^
I can still install and use commercial software if I want, too, so, I'm OK with this "Freedom Police" situation. lol. That's what it is though, since countries which don't have "copyright" laws, don't care to police them and thus it becomes the same thing as the BSD license for them, aka no license at all.
Right, and it's helpful for drilling in a name. They think "um...Linux...hm...what's that?" and even *that* drills in the name. The thing is, what it actually is, if not stated in the ad, will be in other ads or in some other way instead. So, the point that Linux means freedom is something good to drill home, but users at some point do need to learn somehow that it's free and something they need to ask for to be installed on their computers when they buy them.
Having many "software bundles" is a good thing, it allows you to get closer to the set of software that you want as a base before you further add or remove more to customize it. I don't want restrictive software, you didn't understand my post.
Standards give users freedom. The ODF document standard, as an example, or HTML, those standards give users choice. Users can still choose to communicate with other protocols like FTP though. Because the *communication protocol* is standardized, it allows any program to be made compatible with it. Hundreds of web browsers, hundreds of FTP programs, hundreds of office suites. Those are all very good things, and give users more choice. Those standards grant us all freedoms.
The problem is that Linux needs to be Linux. POSIX standards means that you can run Linux binaries on any system (provided dependencies are met), and there is ***NO*** reason why package managers cannot be made compatible with one or more standardized packaging formats. Right now, these formats are proprietary even though they are open because they do not address or are designed for openness and implementation by the world at large. They lack important metadata, they don't care about pulling directly from project homepages and mirrors, they are not designed with openness and universal naming conventions and other features to enable universal Linux packaging.
Fully agreed. Dependencies and "playing nice" with the Linux community in every way to ensure that your program can be easily installed and used is critical. Proprietary Linux can go to hell. Linux spawned in the community and that's where it should play nicely as that's its strength. If someone doesn't want to, I hope their program doesn't get used and that a better program pops up, or that someone else takes over or forks it.
Any lawsuit would fail. XIF or whatnot has promised that they are open, that they are copy-left, royalty-free, community software. If they suddenly tried to sue others for using them, the court would laugh at them.
It's annoying though how ignored this problem is. Piracy and file sharing got Windows to where it is today, and if standardized packaging formats were created that any distro could install, file sharing would help out Linux too.
User 1: Have you tried out the new beta version of Firefox?
User 2: No, I'm stuck with Firefox 3.0.8, because that's what my repo gives me, and I couldn't cleanly upgrade and replace it easily.
User 1: Yes you can, it's a universal package format, it will give you the option to easily upgrade your current version. No menu item changes or tinkering needed like for straight binary archives, it does it all in just a few clicks!
User 2: Cool! Linux rocks!
Is what is needed. It needs to tie in with the package manager so that you can *replace*/upgrade packages on your system. When newer versions of certain libraries are needed, it should have the original developer's source to pull them from as well as many mirrors like sourceforge and such.
There are just so many ways in which this will give all Linux users much more freedom that I can't even begin, and all the technical questions to get this done are small and easily answered, like from a few problems the way I understand them:
Q) What if two different libraries are needed, so that the newer library cannot replace the older one?
A) Libraries should be able to be easily installed side-by-side, and there should be a good API for the library so that compatibility in general will never be broken. If there *is* truly a legitimate need to have a cut off, where one program needs an older library, and another needs a newer one, so be it.
Q) But that will slow my computer down some to be running older software, more current software, and bleeding edge software.
A) If a certain program isn't being maintained anymore lets say, and there was some huge library change which made it so that an old library version was required for this old program, would you rather have your computer load a possible additional library, or not use the program at all if you're a basic user who doesn't understand the command line or how to compile or simply doesn't want to fuck with doing that? If it's possible that the program can be compatible with the newer library after it is recompiled, so be it, someone will helpfully do that, but a normal desktop user should definitely, definitely NOT be *forced* to learn to use the command line and compile, otherwise Linux has failed to bring easy desktop Linux to the masses. Just because someone hasn't updated that program shouldn't mean that *you're* the one who has to do so, you should still have free/quick/easy access.
Q) But what about different config files? Different "flavors" of different packages? Won't installing certain things make breaking my current set-up possible?
A) Where ever there is a different *program*, there should be a different name. If someone actually *modifies* a certain program, that program should be released under a different name. Not only is it polite and simple netiquette, but it's also what the GPL requires (in the countries that require adhering to copyright law that is). If a certain "module" of a certain program is needed, if it is actually modular, those "sub-dependencies" should be called for and easily installed if the program actually IS a modular program. If it isn't, the lowest common denominator to get what is needed should be downloaded/installed automagically. This puts focus on individual software projects instead of being simply buried behind the scenes by a distro company, and gives them more reason to care about making modular software, instead of creating these static software stacks that don't use APIs/standards. As for the config file thing, the same thing applies, config files should be done away with or made *dynamic*, like the program itself, so that static configuration isn't required. In the short term though, these configuration files can have their own packag
Linux packaging is proprietary in the sense that it is confined to one particular family of distros, sometimes to one specific distro, and sometimes to one specific distro *version*. What is needed is a better package management system which will *allow* for the easy installation of any software program and it's required dependencies. This can be accomplished by more APIs and program naming conventions (using the actual name of the program instead of making up some random package name for example, or simply having some metadata for a unique name for a specific program or library, so that packages can ask for and receive the correct dependencies they need).
Coming up with a packaging standard and getting package managers to implement it is something that could easily happen, but there needs to be more interest in it and more Linux users complaining about their lack of freedom.
Yes, it is proprietary, because I cannot install a DEB package on an RPM-based system. Yes, I know why I can't, that isn't the point, the point is I shouldn't have to deal with that problem. Let me install the versions and kinds of libraries and software that I want to instead of forcing me to go through your repository channels.
kthnxbi
P.S. I feel bad for anyone not using Ubuntu, as they are basically totally limited to straight up binaries. RPM has a sizeable base but fuck me is it ever breakable. Linux package management just sucks, period, and needs a revamp. Everyone shouldn't have to use Ubuntu. It's all Linux, and it should all be able to easily work.
Jaunty comes with this new "Computer Janitor" program in the Admin section. I wonder if it will clean up some or most of those stragglers you speak of.
Slashdot Mirror
A) For a hardware vendor to pre-install Linux correctly on a specific computer model is a piece of cake, end of story.
B) Linux works on a much wider variety of hardware than, say, Apple, and out of the box on more hardware than Windows. But even still, buy the hardware which supports Linux, or which Linux supports, and it will just work.
C) Linux is growing.
Not to belittle your comment but instead software patents in general, yeah, it's called a program, you can make a program do anything you want because it's just an idea. Just because someone made a jerry-rig program to function with other programs which existed at the time doesn't mean it was some amazing "innovation". Anyone can make a program given enough time, the only difference between programs are their feature list, speed, bug numbers, interoperability with other programs, etc, but they've been the same fucking thing from the beginning: software is just software. Fuck patents.
That's exactly the system that big companies and monopolies want and why it is how it is - one in which is completely determined by the size of your army of lawyers which favours monopolies and large companies. Corruption/money/competition got them there, now they use their money to keep themselves there.
You're right to some degree, but you also have to realize that the "cloud model" is more than what you're saying, it's more than about software as a service and $$$. It's also about cross-platform applications running via web standards, and you don't and aren't going to need to be connected to run them, you'll be able to save them locally and run them locally in your browser as well as running them "live" on-line. In a sense it's what Java tried to be, and of course many/most of "cloud programs" use Java, but the fact that you can make programs which will run on any OS is one thing that makes it attractive to companies. The push for cloud computing is good because it makes the OS less relevant, which is one force helping to dethrone M$. That's why netbooks and soon-to-be other computers running Android and "Google Desktops" are being pushed. Developing for Linux specifically is harder to sell to many software companies since Linux is still smaller overall, so developing cross-platform is more attractive. Obviously.
:P Now that 3D is coming to the browser as well, there's no telling where the end to running programs through your browser will be. It's conceivable that there will be many entirely browser-based desktops in the future, running local programs but also on-line ones when a net connection is available.
So, don't forget about that perk of the "cloud model", as much as I hate the term.
I think more programs need to be user-land, and perhaps there should be more gradients between root and a normal desktop user. With PolicyKit though, specifying exactly what permissions users have is more finely tuned. Perhaps in the user permissions section, they need to simply separate more things out of "Administer the System" and make more permissions.
Right clicking on the desktop to change the theme is easier IMO, though less users may think to look there first. Agreed about the System thing, it'd be interesting if the default menu was changed to: "Applications Places Preferences Administration/System", as Prefs and Admin being lumped under System may be a bit weird. It's a careful balance though. Too many options is confusing too. Having a "choose your theme right now!" in the installer may be annoying for some, but perhaps the majority of users will like it. I've often thought that Linux bundles needed more "First Time Users Look here!" dialogues, like upon first boot, but once you know that info or if you don't care to know, it will just be viewed as an annoying pop-up to get rid of. Perhaps now while Linux is still new though, it'd be more helpful than annoying.
A lack of universally-standardized Linux packages making it easy for developers to put out easy-to-install Linux programs and drivers that install with a few clicks, like what exists on Mac and Windows, and for users to have a nice and easy experience installing them?
Aside from that gripe, more software development is always needed, but Linux is doing much better there. IMO still needs more/better: games, voice/video chat programs, more automagically-functioning hardware support, and in general anything to make it easier to use and more helpful for the end user. ^^
www.freetaxusa.com
:P There are some money management programs on Linux, if that's what Quicktax is for, but I don't know how they all compare. GnuCash, KMoney, and some others. Wouldn't be too surprised if they're kinda sucky though, but not having any need for such programs I can't say.
Or is that not the same thing?
Well, GNU/Linux package management and the GNU/Linux core systems/APIs/etc still suck, what can I say.
Thanks for the info, but I'm honestly a lot more concerned with archiving and using Linux packages which, you know, actually stay relevant for a long time, i.e. that are universal, work on any distro, etc. Those are the only ones worth sharing and promoting. Proprietary packaging systems can go to hell.
You missed the point completely, and no not like that.
The weird meamo or whatever thing: That's how easy it should be, but it needs to be for all Linux distros, not just one.
The repository thing: Once again, no, it needs to be a UNIVERSAL FORMAT. Maybe you should actually read next time.
with a little work
Ya. I know. Thanks for making my point for me.
Alien isn't automatic, and there are packages for specific *versions* of distros even and that should not be a requirement, that should be totally unnecessary if packaging was done correctly. RPMs do NOT work out-of-the-box on DEB distros, nor vise versa. There are no universal packaging formats yet that are used by the main distro package managers.
So-called "third-party" (it's all LINUX) Package management sucks on Linux, and is not yet ready for the masses.
And ya, by Linux I mean GNU/Linux, I don't want to take the time spelling that out every single damn time, so just unknot your panties already.
Yep, and when everyone starts accepting that Linux still has things it needs to work on and that being critical is a good thing, and gear the atmosphere towards one of solving problems, Linux will keep making inroads.
You DO know you're in the open source section, right? o.O
Yes yes I know that money can definitely help, you're right, but I'm making the argument that it's not always necessary, even collaboration isn't necessary, but both certainly can and do help.
Perhaps what could be done now is more could get involved with the source material, and help to improve it, and produce a better version.
Not that this will ever go on TV any way, as that requires money and so far the big Linux companies haven't done that much and really should get together and throw money into the same bucket to pay for a burst of Linux ads. Many consumers are using things like YouTube instead, but even on YouTube or other places that are popular, you'd have to be looking for this ad to find it most likely, and you won't search for it unless you already know about it, or you really really really hate Windows.
I actually had that happen to me before. Someone got so frustrated with their Windows OS that they asked me "Do you know of an alternative to Microsoft???"
Everybody just has flash preinstalled from his bought computer (noobs), or installs it himself (non-noobs).
And that right there is the problem. Your distro shouldn't have to come with insert-specific-program-you-want-here, you should be able to easily download and install it from the net in a few clicks. Right now Linux can't do this, because of proprietary Linux packaging. Straight binaries are a pain, and users shouldn't have to deal with files like that, they should be able to easily *install* and upgrade, if it's already installed, and Linux program regardless of their distro.
This is a VERY important feature that Linux needs, and as soon as distro companies stop ignoring this problem and getting off on their proprietary repositories so that ALL Linux users will have freedom by helping the community create universal standardized packaging systems and formats, this will remain an issue. You should not be tied to the select software your distro wants you to have, but you should have the freedom to get your software fix directly from the developers themselves if you want to.
If by your comment you were meaning what I think you were meaning, let me elaborate for you:
Linux needs universal packaging to make it EASY to download and install any LINUX program regardless of your distro. Linux software needs to be click, (maybe one or two more clicks), run. Until it gets this right, users will be stuck with a proprietary repository and the software it provides, and not free to easily try out other programs. When Joe Six Pack can use Linux easily by clicking, Linux will be 1000 times more ready for his or her desktop.
Which is of course why I hate the term PC, but yes you're completely right. I think the U.S. government should force the computer sellers to offer Linux, and not require the purchasing of Windows. This is a totally unfair card which, if removed from their hand, would quickly destroy them.
Which is a somewhat selfish idea, you're right. Everyone who wants to contribute to the community, but wants others to do the same in return if they want to contribute to the same project, is somewhat selfish for that. However, that's what being copy-left is essentially, instead of being copy-neutral. Copy-left means fighting *against* copy-right by forcing it to remain available to the community. I don't mind this force, because I think most businesses play mean, so for them it's saying "Well...I guess we will contribute some code, but only if others give their contributions to us too!" is something that happens naturally for them. They are naturally selfish, and ultimately I think it's good for computer users. Why? Well, look at how much bigger Linux is than BSD, for starters. Essentially, it enforces perpetual openness, and as a user of "free software", I obviously have no problem with that! ^^
I can still install and use commercial software if I want, too, so, I'm OK with this "Freedom Police" situation. lol. That's what it is though, since countries which don't have "copyright" laws, don't care to police them and thus it becomes the same thing as the BSD license for them, aka no license at all.
Right, and it's helpful for drilling in a name. They think "um...Linux...hm...what's that?" and even *that* drills in the name. The thing is, what it actually is, if not stated in the ad, will be in other ads or in some other way instead. So, the point that Linux means freedom is something good to drill home, but users at some point do need to learn somehow that it's free and something they need to ask for to be installed on their computers when they buy them.
Having many "software bundles" is a good thing, it allows you to get closer to the set of software that you want as a base before you further add or remove more to customize it. I don't want restrictive software, you didn't understand my post.
Standards give users freedom. The ODF document standard, as an example, or HTML, those standards give users choice. Users can still choose to communicate with other protocols like FTP though. Because the *communication protocol* is standardized, it allows any program to be made compatible with it. Hundreds of web browsers, hundreds of FTP programs, hundreds of office suites. Those are all very good things, and give users more choice. Those standards grant us all freedoms.
The problem is that Linux needs to be Linux. POSIX standards means that you can run Linux binaries on any system (provided dependencies are met), and there is ***NO*** reason why package managers cannot be made compatible with one or more standardized packaging formats. Right now, these formats are proprietary even though they are open because they do not address or are designed for openness and implementation by the world at large. They lack important metadata, they don't care about pulling directly from project homepages and mirrors, they are not designed with openness and universal naming conventions and other features to enable universal Linux packaging.
Fully agreed. Dependencies and "playing nice" with the Linux community in every way to ensure that your program can be easily installed and used is critical. Proprietary Linux can go to hell. Linux spawned in the community and that's where it should play nicely as that's its strength. If someone doesn't want to, I hope their program doesn't get used and that a better program pops up, or that someone else takes over or forks it.
Any lawsuit would fail. XIF or whatnot has promised that they are open, that they are copy-left, royalty-free, community software. If they suddenly tried to sue others for using them, the court would laugh at them.
Thanks. :P
It's annoying though how ignored this problem is. Piracy and file sharing got Windows to where it is today, and if standardized packaging formats were created that any distro could install, file sharing would help out Linux too.
User 1: Have you tried out the new beta version of Firefox?
User 2: No, I'm stuck with Firefox 3.0.8, because that's what my repo gives me, and I couldn't cleanly upgrade and replace it easily.
User 1: Yes you can, it's a universal package format, it will give you the option to easily upgrade your current version. No menu item changes or tinkering needed like for straight binary archives, it does it all in just a few clicks!
User 2: Cool! Linux rocks!
Is what is needed. It needs to tie in with the package manager so that you can *replace*/upgrade packages on your system. When newer versions of certain libraries are needed, it should have the original developer's source to pull them from as well as many mirrors like sourceforge and such.
There are just so many ways in which this will give all Linux users much more freedom that I can't even begin, and all the technical questions to get this done are small and easily answered, like from a few problems the way I understand them:
Q) What if two different libraries are needed, so that the newer library cannot replace the older one?
A) Libraries should be able to be easily installed side-by-side, and there should be a good API for the library so that compatibility in general will never be broken. If there *is* truly a legitimate need to have a cut off, where one program needs an older library, and another needs a newer one, so be it.
Q) But that will slow my computer down some to be running older software, more current software, and bleeding edge software.
A) If a certain program isn't being maintained anymore lets say, and there was some huge library change which made it so that an old library version was required for this old program, would you rather have your computer load a possible additional library, or not use the program at all if you're a basic user who doesn't understand the command line or how to compile or simply doesn't want to fuck with doing that? If it's possible that the program can be compatible with the newer library after it is recompiled, so be it, someone will helpfully do that, but a normal desktop user should definitely, definitely NOT be *forced* to learn to use the command line and compile, otherwise Linux has failed to bring easy desktop Linux to the masses. Just because someone hasn't updated that program shouldn't mean that *you're* the one who has to do so, you should still have free/quick/easy access.
Q) But what about different config files? Different "flavors" of different packages? Won't installing certain things make breaking my current set-up possible?
A) Where ever there is a different *program*, there should be a different name. If someone actually *modifies* a certain program, that program should be released under a different name. Not only is it polite and simple netiquette, but it's also what the GPL requires (in the countries that require adhering to copyright law that is). If a certain "module" of a certain program is needed, if it is actually modular, those "sub-dependencies" should be called for and easily installed if the program actually IS a modular program. If it isn't, the lowest common denominator to get what is needed should be downloaded/installed automagically. This puts focus on individual software projects instead of being simply buried behind the scenes by a distro company, and gives them more reason to care about making modular software, instead of creating these static software stacks that don't use APIs/standards. As for the config file thing, the same thing applies, config files should be done away with or made *dynamic*, like the program itself, so that static configuration isn't required. In the short term though, these configuration files can have their own packag
Linux packaging is proprietary in the sense that it is confined to one particular family of distros, sometimes to one specific distro, and sometimes to one specific distro *version*. What is needed is a better package management system which will *allow* for the easy installation of any software program and it's required dependencies. This can be accomplished by more APIs and program naming conventions (using the actual name of the program instead of making up some random package name for example, or simply having some metadata for a unique name for a specific program or library, so that packages can ask for and receive the correct dependencies they need).
Coming up with a packaging standard and getting package managers to implement it is something that could easily happen, but there needs to be more interest in it and more Linux users complaining about their lack of freedom.
Yes, it is proprietary, because I cannot install a DEB package on an RPM-based system. Yes, I know why I can't, that isn't the point, the point is I shouldn't have to deal with that problem. Let me install the versions and kinds of libraries and software that I want to instead of forcing me to go through your repository channels.
kthnxbi
P.S. I feel bad for anyone not using Ubuntu, as they are basically totally limited to straight up binaries. RPM has a sizeable base but fuck me is it ever breakable. Linux package management just sucks, period, and needs a revamp. Everyone shouldn't have to use Ubuntu. It's all Linux, and it should all be able to easily work.
Jaunty comes with this new "Computer Janitor" program in the Admin section. I wonder if it will clean up some or most of those stragglers you speak of.