What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
168 Comments
- Mejogid, on 10/30/2007, -4/+51I really don't see how this sort of installer is appropriate to a Linux system. I can't find any information on how it plans to get around the problem of dependencies or API/ABI differences between distributions, not to mention the variations in file structure, policies and so on.
Besides problems with actually getting the application working, this looks to be working outside the package manager which comes with its own set of difficulties - no updates, no easy uninstall, no verifiable security, potential for conflicts and changes in APIs and ABIs when the next version comes out. This is the sort of idea that I feel really should remain in the Windows world (where there's just two platforms to target - 32 and 64 bit - and no standard package manager).
On a more positive note, package kit looks like it could provide a consistent way to install packages between distributions, and could allow applications to install additional items (plugins, codecs, artwork, support for additional file formats etc) aswell as providing a consistent front end between distributions - while still working inside the package manigar. - nanostream, on 10/31/2007, -6/+43Who else thought the title meant a universal package manager? A merge of apt-get, aptitude, yum, rPath, etc.
That would've been awesome. - srg13, on 10/23/2007, -4/+37There's already autopackage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopackage ) and MojoSetup (working title, I think) (http://icculus.org/cgi-bin/ezmlm/ezmlm-cgi?2:mss:8 ... )...
- geminitojanus, on 10/23/2007, -0/+32"I can't find any information on how it plans to get around the problem of dependencies or API/ABI differences between distributions, not to mention the variations in file structure, policies and so on."
It doesn't do any of that. It's Installishield for *nix.
Why on earth we need another installation framework is simply beyond me. We've already got three extremely well tuned ones (APT, RPM and variants, and source distributions [.tgz]), a dozen half-baked ones (this, yum's replacement, click-n-run, etc), and now these mongrels which don't even check for libraries before blindly plowing along. Then we've got interesting experiments/hacks like klik and glick which do completely-self contained software distribution (like .app on Mac OS X, only it's one file and not one folder).
Linux needs another application installation framework just as much as nuclear submarines need screen doors. - malkir, on 10/23/2007, -2/+27You seem to be mistaking a lack of 3rd party support with "needs an installer". If the company you bought your keyboard from provided drivers for linux you wouldn't have a problem. Also, if they didn't provide drivers for windows you would be just as out of luck as you are now in linux.
- izzybr, on 11/10/2007, -3/+27That's great...but how do you install the installer?
- dwbell, on 10/21/2007, -0/+24No. No you didn't. Just because you did it by command line doesn't mean there wasn't another way. In Ubuntu installing flash and java is as simple as ticking them off in synaptic and hitting apply.
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -1/+22You can have my APT package handling utility when you take it from my cold dead hard drive.
- deadbaby, on 10/23/2007, -2/+21Doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. What's wrong with yum & apt? They have become the standard for all the popular distros because they have years of development & testing behind them. They work pretty much flawlessly. If a developer can't take the time to make a .deb or .rpm I doubt they're going to bother making a nixinstaller package either.
What they should do instead, IMO, is make a format that allows developers to package a .deb, .rpm and .tar.gz into a single file. One (somewhat big...) file would work on any distro with its native package manager doing all the real work. Perhaps that IS the goal of this project. Can't really tell from looking at the screenshots how it actually works. - SirDivineGod, on 10/21/2007, -1/+15That distribution is infact Debian as Ubuntu is made from Debian. and thus they share the same package system.
- Archon810, on 10/21/2007, -2/+14A great merge is 'smart'. http://labix.org/smart
It handles APT, APT-RPM, YUM, URPMI, etc - sdubois92, on 11/10/2007, -1/+13./configure
make
make install - jorgepblank, on 10/23/2007, -1/+12Yeah, what we need is to focus on one, otherwise it dilutes the effort and duplicates labor unnecessarily. I say we work with Autopackage, although I hear it's kind of complicated to package things for.
- Muncher, on 10/21/2007, -0/+11I'm pretty sure the problem that this addresses doesn't even apply to OS X, as there's only one "distribution," the one made by Apple.
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -9/+20I think all we need is a distro-wide adoption of apt and completely compatible packages, then we'd be set.
DEATH TO RPM! - JonForTheWin, on 10/21/2007, -0/+11>I downloaded the "packages" from the official site. The ones in synaptic weren't up to date.
It's called double click, it works on Ubuntu. If that didn't work, then they weren't "packages", and you need to complain to the manufacturer for disrespecting you. The Linux, Ubuntu, and GNU communities, like microsoft, didn't make the device you have, and like microsoft, they can not help you.
Stand up for yourself as a consumer and bitch at logitech. - NoTiG, on 10/27/2007, -1/+12From what I have read Smartpackage is the future: http://labix.org/smart
Shuttleworth even mentioned it a while ago and canonical has been funding them since 2005 - koko775, on 10/22/2007, -0/+10Wouldn't it be wiser to come up with a format that could be arbitrarily converted between .deb, .rpm, and .tar.gz? As far as I know they're the same binaries, just with different dependency info, path, and install process.
- Mejogid, on 10/21/2007, -0/+10Download Gutsy. Desktop linux has moved on leaps and bounds in the past few years.
- bruce89, on 10/21/2007, -1/+9Have fun convincing everyone to use the same toolchain.
- agentlame, on 10/21/2007, -2/+10From the Autopackage FAQ:
# What's wrong with NeXT/MacOSX style appfolders?
It's quite tricky to implement appfolders on Linux using the same implementation as used on NeXT/RISC OS/MacOS X, for several reasons:
* Dependencies. MacOS X avoids this by having a large platform that isn't configurable: you can't opt-out of installing parts of the base OS like you can with Linux, so Mac developers can say that they need OS X 10.2 and get a large chunk of functionality. See the discussion of the Linux desktop platform below. Some packages still have dependencies, so two techniques are used:
o MacOS provides a simple installer technology. It's been improved in the "Tiger" release.
o Framework linking allows you to have a framework contained within an appfolder. If this is a newer version than the one on the system, other apps will automatically use this.
o The core frameworks support weak linkage, so programs can easily fall back when run on earlier versions of the OS. We have an equivalent to this on Linux now through relaytool.
* Design of desktop environments on Linux. The freedesktop.org standards are oriented around the concept of "drop a file in $XYZ_DIR, regenerate a cache". This doesn't work too well when applications can be installed anywhere. To make things like file associations and URL handlers work, on the Mac the Finder registers appfolders with Launch Services as it finds them. On startup it scans the Applications directory for appfolders and links them into the file type/component database, and also as the user navigates to them in the Finder. In other words, they aren't truly location neutral: to integrate properly you need to hold them in the Applications folder.
In order to correctly integrate appfolders with KDE/GNOME, you would have to rewrite them to ignore the freedesktop.org specs (or hack around them). We can't do that: autopackage is designed to work on Linux systems deployed today. You would also have to remove the applications menu.
* There are at least 3 major CPU architectures in use on Linux today: x86, amd64 and PowerPC[64]. The NeXT approach to this was "fat binaries", which essentially means giving everybody binaries for every architecture. But this can massively increase the size of the package: whilst disk space may be cheap, bandwidth is still not cheap for many people.
* Appfolders don't take into account the possibility of optionally downloading/installing translations. For a popular program like the GIMP, the translations alone can easily reach over 12mb. You don't really want to download large quantities of translations for languages you don't speak.
* Apps written purely for deployment using appfolders often end up making bad assumptions, like being able to write to their directory.
It's worth noting that Apple themselves don't always use appfolders anymore: in fact iTunes itself comes inside an installer.
It'd still be possible to do an appfolders based Linux, but you would probably end up creating a new distro and heavily patching the desktop environments. This could be interesting, but it doesn't solve anything for the millions of Linux users already out there and happy with the OS they have.
But ... (there's always a but) ... this does not mean we can't implement the appfolders style user interface in some other way. People often assume that the only way to have a drag/drop based user interface is to do things exactly like MacOS X does. Not so! The UI vision document talks about how we can implement a better form of the appfolders drag/drop "apps as first class user objects" user interface on top of a Linux style packaging system.
(http://autopackage.org/faq.html?PHPSESSID=dbf1548f ... - MWeather, on 10/21/2007, -0/+8Of course they're not up to date. They need to be tested first.
- rabidjade, on 10/21/2007, -2/+9..and people wonder why Linux is having a hard time making it to the mainstream.
- daftman, on 10/23/2007, -1/+8This seems to me like a solution in search of a problem.
- euvirtual, on 10/21/2007, -0/+6http://www.packagekit.org/
Basicaly, a graphical tool that uses apt, yum, etc. - dukeinlondon, on 10/21/2007, -4/+10I have thought for many years that the way this would get resolved is by one distro laying the common ground for the others. Ubuntu is that distro. Doesn't mean other distros will stop existing, but distros that want to benefit from standard packages will base themselves on Ubuntu. Plenty already do. Ubuntu is mainstream Linux. As it becomes available preinstalled on more hardware, it will only become a stronger trend.
- trzynascie, on 10/21/2007, -2/+8emm...
./configure
make && make install, anyone? - inactive, on 10/21/2007, -1/+7There are already GUI-based package managers for Linux. For example, I've used Synaptic, Adept, and Ubuntu's "Add/Remove Programs."
- andycr512, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5Bull. I would like to see you back your statement up, if that is actually possible. Have you even tried a recent version of Ubuntu?
- GoldenChaos, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5I didn't have to use the terminal on Ubuntu for about the first week. Then I found stuff that I wanted to install that wasn't in the repositories. It was great, great fun learning how to install Awn.
(It was a NIGHTMARE, by the way, for me who is used to simple wizard installers. Shame on me for considering myself a tech geek.) - TypeEE, on 10/21/2007, -1/+6you either have never used linux or you have not use it for a looooooooonnnnnnnnng time.
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5and this is exactly the reaon why linux needs a installer.
- penguincentral, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5Good luck, because you're going to need it.
- crapmatic, on 10/21/2007, -1/+6Uhhh... since it's an installer, it installs itself? Surely you can run an executable.
- bruce89, on 10/21/2007, -0/+5PackageKit?
- stargatesteve, on 10/21/2007, -3/+8auto make is used for more applications than any other, and has been around longer than most of YOU have been alive.
- stargatesteve, on 10/21/2007, -4/+9Because it's less secure, doesn't work for the number of apps required to use a system, and even OS X uses automake.
- andycr512, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5IPv6 is a very strange thing in Ubuntu to have enabled by default. To those noticing slow web browsing, go to about:config in firefox, type ipv6 in the search box, and double-click the only entry that comes up. Restart firefox and the problem should be fixed.
- inactive, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5Oh, and you don't have to install from source either.
- noddyxoi, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4lamest stuff ever. looks like a windows installation.
here is how i do when i want to try the gnome desktop from time to time:
smart install gnome
and like 5 minutes later all 300mb of stuff that depends on gnome are installed. you can't beat that with a windows like installer. - Surkow, on 10/22/2007, -0/+4Gobolinux (http://www.gobolinux.org/?page=at_a_glance) uses an interesting way of managing packages. Instead of needing a package manager it uses the file system as a package manager. So with this distribution there wouldn't be a need for a universal installer.
- agentlame, on 10/23/2007, -2/+6Another one? I swear there's a new one every week. This will have the same problem they all do, no one will support it.
Everyone seems to want to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Apt work wonderfully. I guess that people are so use to how windows does things, that they just can't wrap their heads around a single app that you use to install others.
I don't know about everyone else, but I CAN'T WAIT for the day that I get the latest Amarok from Download.com! That is much more simple then my update manager. As it is, I cringe when I have to use Loki. Everything on my system auto-updates, EXCEPT stupid Google Earth. And I have no idea why, they HAVE a deb repo.
The only thing of this nature that sounds even remotely interesting, was the one the FSF/GNU was working on. But that was a universal package management system. Not NSIS Linux Edition.
But, alas, even that would require a LOT of distro support, to get off the ground. - andycr512, on 10/21/2007, -0/+4.Deb files are exactly as you described.
- jmo14, on 10/21/2007, -1/+5I don't understand why so many are against this. If you could have this as an alternative for things that aren't in repositories, I think that would be fantastic for new people switching from Windows & OS X, as that is the way they are used to doing it. There package manager is great, but any time something isn't in a repository with that, it is an absolute nightmare for anyone not familiar with a terminal, which IMHO in this day in age should pretty much never have to be used. Just my $.02.
- Acglaphotis, on 10/21/2007, -4/+7AND because it sucks.
- google01103, on 10/22/2007, -0/+3350 (or so) different distros, maybe close to that number in installers - yea that's the ticket for greater acceptance.
My personal favorite is klik2 (2nd generation klik), kinda universal binary - package it once install it anywhere. - axentrix, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3seriusly, they GOT to stop calling everyting *nix*. nixstaller? wtf`?
- kenman345, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3i am in support of that, but since ubuntu gets a lot more mainstream these days, i also suggested that an exported list of dependencies that can be imported into any users synaptic package manager for easy dependency downloading also take place. otherwise those three steps are a great way to go, if you have the dependencies
-
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is