Linux packaging systems suck

allix · Post by **allix** » Tue May 08, 2007 4:09 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote: Why can't debian stable function like Windows or Mac OS X, so that the core OS is separate from the applications?

FreeBSD does that, but then you do not like it

If i did not know you , i would think your a troll.
As harsh as it sounds, almost every post you start has some complaint about linux or bsd.
I have yet to hear a complaint about windows,mac osx or a compliment about linux or bsd .

CptnObvious999 · Post by **CptnObvious999** » Tue May 08, 2007 4:24 pm

allix wrote:
Wally Balljacker wrote: Why can't debian stable function like Windows or Mac OS X, so that the core OS is separate from the applications?
FreeBSD does that, but then you do not like it
If i did not know you , i would think your a troll.
As harsh as it sounds, almost every post you start has some complaint about linux or bsd.
I have yet to hear a complaint about windows,mac osx or a compliment about linux or bsd .

I wouldn't go that far. I believe he does have a point, it would be nice to have an easy way to install something outside of the repos. This has been a problem for a long time and so far there hasn't been a very good solution. Instead the pressure has been put on distribution maintainers to have a package manager that is both stable, uptodate, and contains as many packages as possible. As you can imagine this is a lot of pressure on one group and you can't expect to have all 3. Because you can't have everything fans sometimes get sick of this and create their own disto/package management system in the hopes that theirs will be the best. In some cases it is worse, sometimes it is better, but it is never a full solution.

allix · Post by **allix** » Tue May 08, 2007 4:38 pm

CptnObvious999 wrote: I wouldn't go that far. I believe he does have a point, it would be nice to have an easy way to install something outside of the repos. This has been a problem for a long time and so far there hasn't been a very good solution. Instead the pressure has been put on distribution maintainers to have a package manager that is both stable, uptodate, and contains as many packages as possible. As you can imagine this is a lot of pressure on one group and you can't expect to have all 3. Because you can't have everything fans sometimes get sick of this and create their own disto/package management system in the hopes that theirs will be the best. In some cases it is worse, sometimes it is better, but it is never a full solution.

That's not complaining that's doing something about it.

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:05 pm

allix wrote:
Wally Balljacker wrote: Why can't debian stable function like Windows or Mac OS X, so that the core OS is separate from the applications?
FreeBSD does that, but then you do not like it
If i did not know you , i would think your a troll.
As harsh as it sounds, almost every post you start has some complaint about linux or bsd.
I have yet to hear a complaint about windows,mac osx or a compliment about linux or bsd .

I like FreeBSD's approach, but there are still sticking points IMO.

- Maintaining a Ports tree can be time-consuming. Ideally I don't want to compile everything if I don't have to. I like the Mac OS X way of installing software better.

- FreeBSD's hardware support still lags behind Linux, and things such as NetworkManager, and ACPI are non-existent, or not as well implemented as they are on Linux.

While I think FreeBSD is based on excellent underlying technology, I personally don't think FreeBSD is usable on the desktop. Atleast not for me.

And regarding your other post about doing something about it, that isn't my job. I have no interest in programming or writing code. The only way I can help is by offering criticism and advice on ways to improve things. I think if you step back and stop being so defensive, you will realize that I have some valid points.

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:33 pm

Interesting discussion here. I agree with many of the points made. There is no perfect packaging system in Linux that combines stability and bleeding edge. ArchLinux is probably the closest in my experience, but it's certainly not infallible. Arch's bleeding edge has burned me a few times such that I've stepped back away from that edge just a tad.

The ACPI issue is a difficult one. IMHO, ACPI in general is really, really flaky even in Linux. Suspending is a notorious problem.

In my experience, while FreeBSD's ACPI support is less than that of Linux, what it does support, it supports very well. Here is a concrete example. I have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to get suspend working in debian etch on my thinkpad x40. I have mucked around in /etc/acpi and /etc/hibernate for weeks, hacking away at the scripts in there. I've created my own suspend event scripts as well, and even imported those from Feisty, all with mediocre success. It works sometimes, not others. Sometimes closing the lid will suspend, sometimes not. Sometimes Fn-F4 will suspend, sometimes not. When it comes back, sometimes the screen is garbled, sometimes not. It's been very frustrating.

I also have FreeBSD on this laptop, and once I added a few lines to /etc/sysctl.conf, ACPI and suspend just works. Every time. In fact, FreeBSD's suspending on my X40 and my Thinkpad T42 has been better than that of most Linux distros I've put on there except for Ubuntu. Ubuntu does suspend pretty darn well.

So, it can be a mixed bag either way.

Jza · Post by **Jza** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:40 pm

Maybe I didnt get the correct question. But there are apps that are separated from the core distro repository model. These are projects such as:
- Klik
- Autopackage
- Zero-Install

Even OpenOffice.org is completely separated from the OS in the sense that it doesnt have dpeendencies, exept maybe for Java.

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:46 pm

I see what you're saying, Chess. Hardware support on any free Unix can be problematic. And yes, even on Linux, ACPI doesn't always work, although I have had better luck with hibernation/suspend on Ubuntu and Debian than I have on FreeBSD. It's funny, because I'm actually running Debian on a ThinkPad R52, and ACPI works great, even with the proprietary ATI driver installed, which used to cause problems.

Go figure, eh?

CptnObvious999 · Post by **CptnObvious999** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:51 pm

Jza wrote:Maybe I didnt get the correct question. But there are apps that are separated from the core distro repository model. These are projects such as:
- Klik
- Autopackage
- Zero-Install

Even OpenOffice.org is completely separated from the OS in the sense that it doesnt have dpeendencies, exept maybe for Java.

True however Linux has become so popular that reaching every project and getting them to adopt one method is impossible and no one will agree upon one. Right now those projects are not very popular and do not get a lot of support and are not without their flaws. This is the one case where it might actually be better (at least in the short term) to have one entity decide on a standard for everyone to fall behind like Apple or Microsoft did.

It also doesn't help that Linux can be insanely different depending on it's environment. If you want to install something on a SPARC server the installer would probably be wildly different than a x86 desktop or a PDA running linux without gtk even installed.

So we have both technical and political issues holding everything back to it's current state.

Chess · Post by **Chess** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:56 pm

@jza: you are right, however in the BSD's the separation goes much, much farther. Everything you install from ports (which is everything except the core) goes into /usr/local/. For example, if you install dovecot on Debian, it's configuration file is at /etc/dovecot.conf. On FreeBSD, it's in /usr/local/etc/dovecot.conf.

In other words, /usr/local contains all extra apps, such that you could probably delete /usr/local/ and get rid of all non-core apps and start all over with just the core. (I have never done that, and maybe that's an exaggeration, but essentially that's the case). Everything is truly separated, not just the openoffice.org type applications.

@Wally: heh, yeah, goes to show you that everybody's experience is always slightly different. I guess I picked the wrong laptops.

allix · Post by **allix** » Tue May 08, 2007 5:59 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote: I think if you step back and stop being so defensive, you will realize that I have some valid points.

And your not defensive of everything apple do ?

allix · Post by **allix** » Tue May 08, 2007 6:01 pm

CptnObvious999 wrote: It also doesn't help that Linux can be insanely different depending on it's environment. If you want to install something on a SPARC server the installer would probably be wildly different than a x86 desktop or a PDA running linux without gtk even installed.

So we have both technical and political issues holding everything back to it's current state.

There is the Linux Standard Base which is being ignored on the most part, sadly

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Tue May 08, 2007 6:03 pm

Chess wrote:@Wally: heh, yeah, goes to show you that everybody's experience is always slightly different. I guess I picked the wrong laptops.

Well, when you think about it, the Linux and FreeBSD projects basically have an impossible task in front of them; trying to support every single combination of hardware that is out there. It's a massive undertaking, and I commend all the guys who get this stuff working.

allix wrote:And your not defensive of everything apple do ?

Can you give me an example?

allix · Post by **allix** » Tue May 08, 2007 6:25 pm

Wally Balljacker wrote: Can you give me an example?

https://www.thelinuxlink.net/forum/view ... ht=mac+osx

That post has the most .

CptnObvious999 · Post by **CptnObvious999** » Tue May 08, 2007 6:46 pm

allix wrote:
CptnObvious999 wrote: It also doesn't help that Linux can be insanely different depending on it's environment. If you want to install something on a SPARC server the installer would probably be wildly different than a x86 desktop or a PDA running linux without gtk even installed.

So we have both technical and political issues holding everything back to it's current state.

There is the Linux Standard Base which is being ignored on the most part, sadly

Not to get too off topic but I actually think the LSB has a been a pretty large success. They have settled on a standard desktop file, drag-n-drop functionality, and soon icon name schemes, mime databases, and the system tray. Both KDE and Gnome and the others pretty much all support or will support these standards which accomplishes the projects goal, to make it easier for ISVs. I do not believe they could create one solution for the software problem if they tried though. It is to much of a radical and large scale idea and would involve getting distros together rather than window manager/desktop environment projects together which as you could imagine would be much harder since there are so many.

Wally Balljacker · Post by **Wally Balljacker** » Tue May 08, 2007 7:04 pm

allix wrote:
Wally Balljacker wrote: Can you give me an example?
https://www.thelinuxlink.net/forum/view ... ht=mac+osx

That post has the most .

And I still agree with what I said there. I don't think there's anything wrong with Apple developing their own proprietary operating system for their hardware. It works very well for them, and the BSD people have no problem with it. Don't blame Apple for making a proprietary extension of FreeBSD, blame FreeBSD for allowing it in the first place. A lot of people around here call OS X a "rape of the BSD's". Well, it's not rape if the other person is willing to have sex.