Sorry, what I meant by "mass consensus" was if you had a more visible push for that, package manager developers might actually start giving a damn about it more. But, regardless of how much of a push there is, if a package manager comes out that is compatible with multiple packages instead of using silly out-of-the-manager tools like Alien and such to convert crap, and can do it all natively, I'm switching to that package manager. If it means escaping the walled garden of one particular distro's opinion on my access to Linux software, I will switch in a heartbeat, I will even roll a distro that includes that manager as well as a good selection of default desktop software like Ubuntu does, maybe even the same ones they do, I don't care, and it won't matter anymore because users of my distro would actually be able to install any software they wanted to, so distro selection wouldn't be so important anymore which is the way it should be.
They have lots of packages they've compiled and made RPMs out of, yeah, but I never said anything about all that "going to waste". The package managers, all of them, need to be updated to support a standard, or basically more package file formats than they do now. Or, they can update the RPM format to be usable by other managers, if that were an issue. So, what you'd end up getting is either a refresh of existing RPMs possibly through a simple updater that converts them to the newer RPM version, or other package managers can now suddenly use those RPM archives, or RPM package managers go right ahead and continue to use RPMs, but are also compatible with at least one other format.
It all comes down to this: You can have accessibility and still have choice. I'm not saying force everyone to use one format, developers should always have the option to use several kinds, but standardize those kinds and make them usable by all the goddamn package managers so everyone can actually have access to software.
There are two things that should effect how much a package format is used: accessibility and feature set/performance. Accessibility means the package format is one that is easy to implement, well documented, etc, so that it can be easily adopted into existing package managers and see the light of day. Performance/power effects how much everyone wants to adopt it as well, but a format must have both to succeed, just like with video codecs or compression formats or anything else. VLC can play a zillion different codecs, we need package managers that can deal with the existing package formats or a mass consensus to update those formats.
Everyone's voice counts, so if you want cross-distro apps, stand up and say so, rehashing the stupidity of some developers won't do Linux any favors. Like I said, if good package formats had as much oomph behind them as ODF does, we wouldn't have a problem, cause there's dozens of programs that can use ODF, and it's not the only document format that is open and being utilized, either. (and shut up about MSOOXML cause it's not open);)
And what would be better, a kernel that you could simply include or not include certain modules without the need for compilation, making the kernel truly modular, and hot-swapping them in or out based on your needs. That would make the kernel much more powerful and also useful for "normal" users/admins who might not want to mess with compiling. But, I'm sure my argument will be slapped at by some leave-things-be get-off-my-lawn fanboy who hates the idea of scary new features like true/better modularity.
Save a tree. Let the actual devs do compiling unless someone really actually wants to see the code.
Linux shouldn't have to be a walled garden. As soon as some standards bodies start pushing a package format like ODF was pushed, and managers are updated to be able to use the standard, there won't BE a problem with what manager or distro you choose, it'll just be a matter of choosing the Linux bundle of software that has what you most want to get you up and running the fastest. Sure, you might end up installing more dependencies, but that's to be blamed on the maintainers for library APIs for not having ones that are more stable.
You're right, but it's in times like these when that shift happens, Linux and OSS in general will be in higher demand, employees will consider more getting training or experience with it all, that's how the market works, supply plays catch-up with demand.
Which is perfectly OK as long as all Linux users still have the choice as to which software they choose. Making that choice an easy one for users who don't know how to compile stuff would also be a very nice Linux advancement, and even that can deal with fragmentation, as long as the fragmentation rests on top of some of the most common standards.
Sorry let me specify this a little more clearly just to make sure you don't get your undies in a knot:
"...all I'm saying is that all package managers should be compatible with at least ONE (snip) package format."
i.e., using multiple formats is fine, but all distros should make themselves be able to use at least one package format which is cross-distro so that users can have software accessibility, and so developers only have to make ONE Linux package and be done with it. That's all, that's it, and until Linux gets this fact, Linux will stay fragmented. I want Linux users to have more freedom, without having to understand how to use the command line, and without having to compile shit. What, do you think I'm a Satanist because I'm wanting that? I want Linux to be successful! Oh noes, not that!
Oh my god, you don't understand what I'm talking about, did you even read my post? I'm definitely not ignorant, I've been using Linux for many years. You cannot just download a "DEB or RPM" and install it, only specific versions of DEBs can be installed on specific distros with their DEB package managers, and only RPM files can be installed on machines with RPM package managers and no doubt the distro version situation applies there as well, further fragmenting everything for users. I don't care if it's through a GUI or command line, it doesn't matter at all which you use, I only mentioned easy clicking because that's what normal users will use.
Yes, of *course* you want scripting to be possible, that has nothing to do with anything. I know that Linux is great because you don't *have* to run a GUI, I've seen it myself how Windows admins have to actually fight the windows that pop up to get them to shut the hell up so they can remotely install programs for users.
I'll state my point again here for you, all I'm saying is that all package managers should be compatible with ONE standard package format. Do you like ODF? That's called a standard. It gives you more freedom because it allows you to use many different office productivity suites including even Office, and to be able to read and write files in the format. It gives you freedom and choice by providing a common ground, and standard. Linux cannot and should not always have these repositories made by companies that just want to attract you over to their "Linux version" by compiling their special versions. They will never ever ever be able to compile everything you'd ever want or need. Linux users should not be trapped into depending on them for their program needs. I should be able to link my manager easily directly to the developers of a particular program, i.e. a "third party repository", that is also cross-distro. There are 5 thousand Linux distros out there. Companies and developers, both closed and open source, cannot and should not have to support them all, there's no reason to or need to try as it's unfair.
I've been to many sites that had programs I wanted, made for Linux, that I was unable to get because of all the dependencies with broken links and crap, and Linux adoption will not become widespread until this is fixed. All that has to be done to fix the problem and have true software accessibility for ALL Linux users, is the creation of at least one single packaging standard, later on hopefully more, so developers can use the one they like the most while still reaching all Linux users, just like ODF, OpenGL, HTML, or any other standard that exists today.
I haven't had a problem with RealPlayer 11 on Linux, but regardless, the BBC is the creator of Dirac though, a fairly new still not widely adopted video codec that's totally open and unencumbered from patents or royalties. This way, the BBC will be able to provide media to the public without requiring proprietary solutions, and they'll also save money themselves.
It has worked OK for me too, and though I just use it for the ONE video that I can't play with other players, I don't think using a proprietary video player is that bad *if* the videos you're playing are open.
Everyone should get completely away from all the video codecs out there that are closed, patent-encumbered, or royalty-encumbered in any way, and use truly free ones like Dirac, OGG, and Snow.
On a slightly related note, Firefox 3.1 is coming with their own Firefox video player which will play OGG videos so that no third-party plugins have to be installed to do so. I hope to see more sites supporting OGG because of it.
It shouldn't matter if some distro software package doesn't come with a certain dependency though, that dependency should be easily accessible and installable regardless. Any and all Linux software should be installable on any Linux "distro".
And btw, agreed on the GIMP thing too, yes, we get the reference, but the vast majority will not get the reference and will laugh at the name, so it's stupid and they really really need to change it. Yeah, it's fun and all having your "inside joke" of sorts, but it would really help out your software to have it be called something that is well-understood. Have a contest or something to come up with a new name, I'm sure you'll find lots of good ideas.
Exactly, and once Linux retards stop flaming other Linux users for wanting actual software accessibility, one-click easy cross-distro Linux software installation, among other things to make life easier, Linux will maybe finally start growing out of it's mold! Yes yes, I know Linux is growing, slowly, and getting better in certain areas, but that's a really really really big one.
I'm not a developer, but if I was one, I would NOT release a program for Linux unless it could be easily installed, upgraded, and removed from user's machines regardless of which "distro" they chose. A distro is nothing more than a collection of Linux software programs, and as soon as users realize this and try to get this asshole companies to cooperate and stop pushing distro lock-in, but more freedom Linux users will finally have instead of being trapped in a walled garden without access to the whole universe of Linux software just because they don't know how, or don't want to take the time, to compile software.
Oh and let me also add that if the software is open source then that helps too, but either way a paper printout alongside the machine could be used for backup and verification reasons, for instances when a recount is called for.
Maybe a good compromising solution would be to quickly do a count of what the paper says to make sure it adds up with the machine, which will really help speed things up, not only because the machine has already done it but because you won't have the stupid problems that plagued Florida with some ballots being hard to interpret due to sloppiness or voter confusion (or, you know, drugs...last time I was in FL there seemed to be lots of drugs).:P
Yeah but it's sort of hard to scam a computer that has no USB port.
It's wise to be cautious of voter fraud methodology, don't get me wrong, but the first of the video with them swapping out a USB stick was just funny. If the systems are secure, and there's no way to automatically run some malicious code, then there's no risk. This is the same thing as doing something to the computers used to take count at voting stations. At some point the total is entered in somewhere, so if you can get to the total then of course you can manipulate it.
Any way, if the machines also print out the voter's selection on paper, then there's that I guess, but like I said, ultimately someone reports the totals, somewhere, and ultimately it's up to that system to function truthfully. As long as the mechanisms used to tally the numbers are secure, paper or electronic, I think matters less than many would like to admit, and I think there is some real electronic paranoia out there.
Interesting, but of course Linux has the main oomph behind it right now, and luckily many features are being shared, between all kernels and OSes out there right now. I believe this problem can be solved easily within Linux, without having to switch to P9 or Minix or anything else, but those are certainly life savers should anything completely fragment Linux.....more than it is now. =P
The Burgdorf Packaging API is one solution that will help solve the Linux package standardization issue, as well as more top-level solutions like Klik and Zero Install.
The government acting like a corporation by "selling" "frequencies of the spectrum" to companies for billions of dollars through auctions leaves me at a loss for words. No, I don't think the FCC would simply just give back the frequencies to the public without a major fight costing lots of tax money. The FCC should be gotten rid of as it's original purpose has long been obsoleted by advancements in technology via new ways of discerning between data sources.
Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt
on
Linux 2.6.27 Out
·
· Score: 0
No, Linux is harder than Windows in some ways. Often on Windows, aside from the shitty software (like Windows itself) that often plagues it, when something goes wrong, the fix for it is often a few clicks away to solve the problem. In Linux, it often takes knowledge of the command line, knowledge of permissions, knowledge of compilation, and other barriers that make it more difficult for users to fix issues. What Linux needs to fix this are cross-distro binary packages so that Linux is targetable as a platform. This way, you can actually put out a Linux patch, like you would with Windows, and it will actually be easily installable so end users can troubleshoot their own systems without the required rank of guru.
As soon as software accessibility is improved, making free software truly free software by the average non-geek, Linux will be a much more viable OS. Not to mention, it will also allow non-free stuff to be easily installed, so we could finally get a lot more Linux games make for it, which will further help adoption.
Or quite simply: Not everyone is a developer, and no one should be FORCED to fuck with source code unless they want to.
Not to mention the fact that most everyone who does compile doesn't read the code any way, so there's no point unless you like playing the "watch the text go wizzing by" game, which isn't the most exciting game I could be playing to be honest even if it is slightly strangely hypnotizing.
And you're right, once at least one package format for Linux is standardized, Linux will finally be an actual targetable platform where users can finally easily uninstall/update it all instead of having these "loose" binaries. Sure, loose binaries are OK to some degree, but I'd like to use the package manager for the obvious reasons and benefits that it provides. Not only will it be easier for proprietary software companies to make ONE Linux package, but all software installation will be easier. I won't have to go and be a Linux compilation nerd and compile program Y just to run it, or upgrade or change "distros" just to have access to specific software. Once Linux distro lock-in proprietaization is dead, and all software is easily accessible, free software will finally be free software.
He's right though in that Linux needs to become more modular so that you don't have to compile everything. There needs to be more Linux binaries offered, and having at least one Linux packaging format that all managers are compatible with would be a huge step towards having that.
I should not have to change distros just to install some specific piece of software. It's all Linux, so it should all Just Work. He should be able to go download the 2.6.27 kernel package, install it, and automatic dependency installation if there were any new dependencies along with it would be very nice too, which is also possible. Once repository URLs are included in package files so that users can update their software directly from the developers who MAKE the damn thing, Linux will finally be a much more targetable platform and free from distro lock-in.
No, I don't want your stupid customized version of Firefox, I want the one from the developers so when I file bug fixes for *Firefox*, I know the problem is Mozilla's and not some distro packager.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, what I meant by "mass consensus" was if you had a more visible push for that, package manager developers might actually start giving a damn about it more. But, regardless of how much of a push there is, if a package manager comes out that is compatible with multiple packages instead of using silly out-of-the-manager tools like Alien and such to convert crap, and can do it all natively, I'm switching to that package manager. If it means escaping the walled garden of one particular distro's opinion on my access to Linux software, I will switch in a heartbeat, I will even roll a distro that includes that manager as well as a good selection of default desktop software like Ubuntu does, maybe even the same ones they do, I don't care, and it won't matter anymore because users of my distro would actually be able to install any software they wanted to, so distro selection wouldn't be so important anymore which is the way it should be.
They have lots of packages they've compiled and made RPMs out of, yeah, but I never said anything about all that "going to waste". The package managers, all of them, need to be updated to support a standard, or basically more package file formats than they do now. Or, they can update the RPM format to be usable by other managers, if that were an issue. So, what you'd end up getting is either a refresh of existing RPMs possibly through a simple updater that converts them to the newer RPM version, or other package managers can now suddenly use those RPM archives, or RPM package managers go right ahead and continue to use RPMs, but are also compatible with at least one other format.
;)
It all comes down to this: You can have accessibility and still have choice. I'm not saying force everyone to use one format, developers should always have the option to use several kinds, but standardize those kinds and make them usable by all the goddamn package managers so everyone can actually have access to software.
There are two things that should effect how much a package format is used: accessibility and feature set/performance. Accessibility means the package format is one that is easy to implement, well documented, etc, so that it can be easily adopted into existing package managers and see the light of day. Performance/power effects how much everyone wants to adopt it as well, but a format must have both to succeed, just like with video codecs or compression formats or anything else. VLC can play a zillion different codecs, we need package managers that can deal with the existing package formats or a mass consensus to update those formats.
Everyone's voice counts, so if you want cross-distro apps, stand up and say so, rehashing the stupidity of some developers won't do Linux any favors. Like I said, if good package formats had as much oomph behind them as ODF does, we wouldn't have a problem, cause there's dozens of programs that can use ODF, and it's not the only document format that is open and being utilized, either. (and shut up about MSOOXML cause it's not open)
And what would be better, a kernel that you could simply include or not include certain modules without the need for compilation, making the kernel truly modular, and hot-swapping them in or out based on your needs. That would make the kernel much more powerful and also useful for "normal" users/admins who might not want to mess with compiling. But, I'm sure my argument will be slapped at by some leave-things-be get-off-my-lawn fanboy who hates the idea of scary new features like true/better modularity.
Save a tree. Let the actual devs do compiling unless someone really actually wants to see the code.
Linux shouldn't have to be a walled garden. As soon as some standards bodies start pushing a package format like ODF was pushed, and managers are updated to be able to use the standard, there won't BE a problem with what manager or distro you choose, it'll just be a matter of choosing the Linux bundle of software that has what you most want to get you up and running the fastest. Sure, you might end up installing more dependencies, but that's to be blamed on the maintainers for library APIs for not having ones that are more stable.
You're right, but it's in times like these when that shift happens, Linux and OSS in general will be in higher demand, employees will consider more getting training or experience with it all, that's how the market works, supply plays catch-up with demand.
Which is perfectly OK as long as all Linux users still have the choice as to which software they choose. Making that choice an easy one for users who don't know how to compile stuff would also be a very nice Linux advancement, and even that can deal with fragmentation, as long as the fragmentation rests on top of some of the most common standards.
Sorry let me specify this a little more clearly just to make sure you don't get your undies in a knot:
"...all I'm saying is that all package managers should be compatible with at least ONE (snip) package format."
i.e., using multiple formats is fine, but all distros should make themselves be able to use at least one package format which is cross-distro so that users can have software accessibility, and so developers only have to make ONE Linux package and be done with it. That's all, that's it, and until Linux gets this fact, Linux will stay fragmented. I want Linux users to have more freedom, without having to understand how to use the command line, and without having to compile shit. What, do you think I'm a Satanist because I'm wanting that? I want Linux to be successful! Oh noes, not that!
Oh my god, you don't understand what I'm talking about, did you even read my post? I'm definitely not ignorant, I've been using Linux for many years. You cannot just download a "DEB or RPM" and install it, only specific versions of DEBs can be installed on specific distros with their DEB package managers, and only RPM files can be installed on machines with RPM package managers and no doubt the distro version situation applies there as well, further fragmenting everything for users. I don't care if it's through a GUI or command line, it doesn't matter at all which you use, I only mentioned easy clicking because that's what normal users will use.
Yes, of *course* you want scripting to be possible, that has nothing to do with anything. I know that Linux is great because you don't *have* to run a GUI, I've seen it myself how Windows admins have to actually fight the windows that pop up to get them to shut the hell up so they can remotely install programs for users.
I'll state my point again here for you, all I'm saying is that all package managers should be compatible with ONE standard package format. Do you like ODF? That's called a standard. It gives you more freedom because it allows you to use many different office productivity suites including even Office, and to be able to read and write files in the format. It gives you freedom and choice by providing a common ground, and standard. Linux cannot and should not always have these repositories made by companies that just want to attract you over to their "Linux version" by compiling their special versions. They will never ever ever be able to compile everything you'd ever want or need. Linux users should not be trapped into depending on them for their program needs. I should be able to link my manager easily directly to the developers of a particular program, i.e. a "third party repository", that is also cross-distro. There are 5 thousand Linux distros out there. Companies and developers, both closed and open source, cannot and should not have to support them all, there's no reason to or need to try as it's unfair.
I've been to many sites that had programs I wanted, made for Linux, that I was unable to get because of all the dependencies with broken links and crap, and Linux adoption will not become widespread until this is fixed. All that has to be done to fix the problem and have true software accessibility for ALL Linux users, is the creation of at least one single packaging standard, later on hopefully more, so developers can use the one they like the most while still reaching all Linux users, just like ODF, OpenGL, HTML, or any other standard that exists today.
Guess I should also give the link. Dirac Video
I haven't had a problem with RealPlayer 11 on Linux, but regardless, the BBC is the creator of Dirac though, a fairly new still not widely adopted video codec that's totally open and unencumbered from patents or royalties. This way, the BBC will be able to provide media to the public without requiring proprietary solutions, and they'll also save money themselves.
It has worked OK for me too, and though I just use it for the ONE video that I can't play with other players, I don't think using a proprietary video player is that bad *if* the videos you're playing are open.
Everyone should get completely away from all the video codecs out there that are closed, patent-encumbered, or royalty-encumbered in any way, and use truly free ones like Dirac, OGG, and Snow.
On a slightly related note, Firefox 3.1 is coming with their own Firefox video player which will play OGG videos so that no third-party plugins have to be installed to do so. I hope to see more sites supporting OGG because of it.
It shouldn't matter if some distro software package doesn't come with a certain dependency though, that dependency should be easily accessible and installable regardless. Any and all Linux software should be installable on any Linux "distro".
And btw, agreed on the GIMP thing too, yes, we get the reference, but the vast majority will not get the reference and will laugh at the name, so it's stupid and they really really need to change it. Yeah, it's fun and all having your "inside joke" of sorts, but it would really help out your software to have it be called something that is well-understood. Have a contest or something to come up with a new name, I'm sure you'll find lots of good ideas.
Exactly, and once Linux retards stop flaming other Linux users for wanting actual software accessibility, one-click easy cross-distro Linux software installation, among other things to make life easier, Linux will maybe finally start growing out of it's mold! Yes yes, I know Linux is growing, slowly, and getting better in certain areas, but that's a really really really big one.
I'm not a developer, but if I was one, I would NOT release a program for Linux unless it could be easily installed, upgraded, and removed from user's machines regardless of which "distro" they chose. A distro is nothing more than a collection of Linux software programs, and as soon as users realize this and try to get this asshole companies to cooperate and stop pushing distro lock-in, but more freedom Linux users will finally have instead of being trapped in a walled garden without access to the whole universe of Linux software just because they don't know how, or don't want to take the time, to compile software.
Oh and let me also add that if the software is open source then that helps too, but either way a paper printout alongside the machine could be used for backup and verification reasons, for instances when a recount is called for.
:P
Maybe a good compromising solution would be to quickly do a count of what the paper says to make sure it adds up with the machine, which will really help speed things up, not only because the machine has already done it but because you won't have the stupid problems that plagued Florida with some ballots being hard to interpret due to sloppiness or voter confusion (or, you know, drugs...last time I was in FL there seemed to be lots of drugs).
Yeah but it's sort of hard to scam a computer that has no USB port.
It's wise to be cautious of voter fraud methodology, don't get me wrong, but the first of the video with them swapping out a USB stick was just funny. If the systems are secure, and there's no way to automatically run some malicious code, then there's no risk. This is the same thing as doing something to the computers used to take count at voting stations. At some point the total is entered in somewhere, so if you can get to the total then of course you can manipulate it.
Any way, if the machines also print out the voter's selection on paper, then there's that I guess, but like I said, ultimately someone reports the totals, somewhere, and ultimately it's up to that system to function truthfully. As long as the mechanisms used to tally the numbers are secure, paper or electronic, I think matters less than many would like to admit, and I think there is some real electronic paranoia out there.
I think the concept of brainwashing the young through educational institutions has been around for quite some time now.
Yes, because getting work done requires OS X... >.>
Interesting, but of course Linux has the main oomph behind it right now, and luckily many features are being shared, between all kernels and OSes out there right now. I believe this problem can be solved easily within Linux, without having to switch to P9 or Minix or anything else, but those are certainly life savers should anything completely fragment Linux.....more than it is now. =P
The Burgdorf Packaging API is one solution that will help solve the Linux package standardization issue, as well as more top-level solutions like Klik and Zero Install.
By whom, exactly, due to a severe lack in competition in the U.S..
The government acting like a corporation by "selling" "frequencies of the spectrum" to companies for billions of dollars through auctions leaves me at a loss for words. No, I don't think the FCC would simply just give back the frequencies to the public without a major fight costing lots of tax money. The FCC should be gotten rid of as it's original purpose has long been obsoleted by advancements in technology via new ways of discerning between data sources.
No, Linux is harder than Windows in some ways. Often on Windows, aside from the shitty software (like Windows itself) that often plagues it, when something goes wrong, the fix for it is often a few clicks away to solve the problem. In Linux, it often takes knowledge of the command line, knowledge of permissions, knowledge of compilation, and other barriers that make it more difficult for users to fix issues. What Linux needs to fix this are cross-distro binary packages so that Linux is targetable as a platform. This way, you can actually put out a Linux patch, like you would with Windows, and it will actually be easily installable so end users can troubleshoot their own systems without the required rank of guru.
As soon as software accessibility is improved, making free software truly free software by the average non-geek, Linux will be a much more viable OS. Not to mention, it will also allow non-free stuff to be easily installed, so we could finally get a lot more Linux games make for it, which will further help adoption.
(and non-free software will be easily installable, too) :P
Then, all of Sourceforge will be my repository. ^^
Or quite simply: Not everyone is a developer, and no one should be FORCED to fuck with source code unless they want to.
Not to mention the fact that most everyone who does compile doesn't read the code any way, so there's no point unless you like playing the "watch the text go wizzing by" game, which isn't the most exciting game I could be playing to be honest even if it is slightly strangely hypnotizing.
And you're right, once at least one package format for Linux is standardized, Linux will finally be an actual targetable platform where users can finally easily uninstall/update it all instead of having these "loose" binaries. Sure, loose binaries are OK to some degree, but I'd like to use the package manager for the obvious reasons and benefits that it provides. Not only will it be easier for proprietary software companies to make ONE Linux package, but all software installation will be easier. I won't have to go and be a Linux compilation nerd and compile program Y just to run it, or upgrade or change "distros" just to have access to specific software. Once Linux distro lock-in proprietaization is dead, and all software is easily accessible, free software will finally be free software.
He's right though in that Linux needs to become more modular so that you don't have to compile everything. There needs to be more Linux binaries offered, and having at least one Linux packaging format that all managers are compatible with would be a huge step towards having that.
I should not have to change distros just to install some specific piece of software. It's all Linux, so it should all Just Work. He should be able to go download the 2.6.27 kernel package, install it, and automatic dependency installation if there were any new dependencies along with it would be very nice too, which is also possible. Once repository URLs are included in package files so that users can update their software directly from the developers who MAKE the damn thing, Linux will finally be a much more targetable platform and free from distro lock-in.
No, I don't want your stupid customized version of Firefox, I want the one from the developers so when I file bug fixes for *Firefox*, I know the problem is Mozilla's and not some distro packager.