Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu To Get Its Own Package Format, App Installer

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by madjr View Post
    1000? not even in windows or osx I have this problem...
    On Windows there are a lot of library copies.


    Originally posted by madjr View Post
    And in Android I like or need to move most of my apps to the SD card you know.
    How is that related?

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by leonmaxx View Post
      Please someone, kill those guys who use python to write system tools and apps.
      Better have something slow than nothing. Would you code it in C++ for us, please? Thanks in advance.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Calinou View Post
        Better have something slow than nothing. Would you code it in C++ for us, please? Thanks in advance.
        System tools and apps writtern in C already exist.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by brosis View Post
          Haha, so you confirm my suspicions - its all about wasting time trying to fix broken proprietary mindset.
          Eh? I agree with your viewpoint, actually. It's just that some things, like games, can't really become open-source due to the way their selling scheme works. You can't really sell game engines in any other way. And while games themselves could be open-source with paid assets, the engines can't. Even if they used a crowd-funding scheme for developing engines, most people would not participate in it and would instead wait for it to become a reality, then use it for free.

          The only way to make the process a bit more fair would still include the source being proprietary, just without a fixed price to buy a copy of the source - the development process could have a fixed sum of money the developer needs to create a game engine, and then at first it would get crowd-funded to an extent (just for a smaller sum of money than is actually needed for development), and everyone who would want to obtain the source would have to pay into a fund. At first the prices would be fairly steep, but the money from every person contributing to the fund would mostly go towards refunding the money the previous people spent buying the license. So, for example, if it at first costed $1000 for a license, the first person to buy it would set the price to $900, the second to buy it would contribute $800 towards the development costs and $100 to refund the first person for the price shift, the third would pay $850 from which $50 would go to the first contributor, $50 would go to the second, $750 would go to the developer etc. until eventually all costs would only go to other contributors, effectively making all the contributors equal in terms of money spent, and the developer forced to either innovate again, or add a Red Hat-like maintenance plan for the code, so that the engine would get additional features and would not break when new things appear.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Detructor View Post
            I agree with your description. My problem is, that I don't see how you'd get a large enough batch of people that'd collect money and pay for it. You'd need to have a very interesting/original piece of software. Something 'average' (for example if something has been done already a few times and is available) won't do. Which is bad for me, since I lack the creativity to come up with something that hasn't be done already.

            Also I still don't like the idea that someone is able to make money with a complete program I wrote. (if someone is using some source code from me, that's fine by me.) In my eyes the GPL is all about rights of the 'customer' aka the user, the developer has nearly no rights and that's what I'm not comfortable about.
            Well, if you write non-original software, how do you want to market it even with proprietary approach? That won't work. If you lack creativity, cultivate it. If you don't want to cultivate it, join a team that already has it : )

            Regarding second part of your question, its overall very complex thing.
            Restricting rebranding will restrict forking - essential part of the license, if project gets stuck or unfit.
            Restricting commercial re-distribution, that means a fork may not take money for media or for distribution ways, may prevent "rebranding rip-offs", but is seen as anti-opensource (I don't know why, really). But one thing for sure, trying to close something in order to regain control is absolutely bad idea. See DD-WRT case.

            Comment


            • #51
              When are they going to write their own kernel?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by dh04000 View Post
                Try reading. Its obvious you have no idea what your talking about. Another failure of the public education system.
                Thanks for the obvious presentation of your ignorance.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by madjr View Post
                  1000? not even in windows or osx I have this problem...


                  And in Android I like or need to move most of my apps to the SD card you know.
                  I have seen winsxs grow as large as 90 GiB on 160GiB harddrive. Nearly every application brings its own set of libraries, they are "dynamic" only on paper.
                  In Linux due to using only one, rarely several versions of libraries, that co-exist in parallel yet for real reasons, the same stack would weight 1-2 GiB.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I remember seeing a reference to a survey about a year or two ago that said that people being confused with package management, with not being able to go to a website and download the installer for some program they want, as being a leading cause for giving up on Linux and going back to Windows. I assume that enabling such functionality would be a goal of this new installer.

                    Now, I've always felt that a clean, centralized package management system is one of the greatest strong points of the distribution I use (Debian), and do not at all miss the days of having to go download installers from websites.

                    So yeah, Ubuntu has needed something like this for a long time, I think. I just hope this approach doesn't become so popular that it starts to compete with centralized package management on other distros.

                    Anyway, yeah, as others have already pointed out in this thread, the implied dependency, the unlisted dependency, will be the Ubuntu base system. I think this might even make it more difficult to port packages to other distros, not easier.

                    Anyway, developers of proprietary software stand to benefit more from this than developers of open source software. With open source software, the distribution packagers take care of packaging binaries of the program. With proprietary software, the developers themselves have to provide binaries that will run on the target systems. Unfortunately, again, I think only those distributions who are compatible with the base systems that the developers will be packaging for will stand to benefit.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      This is a great idea. .debs are not easy to deal with and there's no graphical tools to help guide you through making one when you just ported your software to Linux.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Hrmph!

                        Ubuntu development was suppose to benefit all. It is not.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Serge View Post
                          I remember seeing a reference to a survey about a year or two ago that said that people being confused with package management, with not being able to go to a website and download the installer for some program they want, as being a leading cause for giving up on Linux and going back to Windows. I assume that enabling such functionality would be a goal of this new installer.

                          Now, I've always felt that a clean, centralized package management system is one of the greatest strong points of the distribution I use (Debian), and do not at all miss the days of having to go download installers from websites.
                          part 1.) That's what I was afraid of, making idiot "point, click, infect" mentality spill into Linux land... great why the hell do idiots want that?!?!

                          part 2.) You hit the nail on the head. That's what I love about Linux, and the many different repositories also protect you!

                          When I said exe's aren't safe I didn't mean the application part of it the self installing download and run .exe that basically made Windows XP the biggest tech repair goldmine in history.

                          Why?!?! FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Detructor View Post
                            I agree with your description. My problem is, that I don't see how you'd get a large enough batch of people that'd collect money and pay for it. You'd need to have a very interesting/original piece of software. Something 'average' (for example if something has been done already a few times and is available) won't do. Which is bad for me, since I lack the creativity to come up with something that hasn't be done already.

                            Also I still don't like the idea that someone is able to make money with a complete program I wrote. (if someone is using some source code from me, that's fine by me.) In my eyes the GPL is all about rights of the 'customer' aka the user, the developer has nearly no rights and that's what I'm not comfortable about.
                            Actually, I disagree, the GPL is about protecting the code. The author of the code can do what he wants with it, but non-authors must abide the GPL. Therefore the code is protected.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Serge View Post
                              I remember seeing a reference to a survey about a year or two ago that said that people being confused with package management, with not being able to go to a website and download the installer for some program they want, as being a leading cause for giving up on Linux and going back to Windows. I assume that enabling such functionality would be a goal of this new installer.

                              Now, I've always felt that a clean, centralized package management system is one of the greatest strong points of the distribution I use (Debian), and do not at all miss the days of having to go download installers from websites.
                              With the current popularity of App Store, Android Market, whatever is on Windows 8 etc., I'm pretty sure that we no longer need installer downloading. Rather, everyone else seem to be shifting towards centralised distribution instead. So it would be a step back. And if it's required by something, even now we have the ability to create such installers - either as RPM/DEB packages, or self-made installers (like fglrx does). No reason to create a yet another package format for this particular problem.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Serge View Post
                                I remember seeing a reference to a survey about a year or two ago that said that people being confused with package management, with not being able to go to a website and download the installer for some program they want, as being a leading cause for giving up on Linux and going back to Windows. I assume that enabling such functionality would be a goal of this new installer.

                                Now, I've always felt that a clean, centralized package management system is one of the greatest strong points of the distribution I use (Debian), and do not at all miss the days of having to go download installers from websites.

                                So yeah, Ubuntu has needed something like this for a long time, I think. I just hope this approach doesn't become so popular that it starts to compete with centralized package management on other distros.

                                Anyway, yeah, as others have already pointed out in this thread, the implied dependency, the unlisted dependency, will be the Ubuntu base system. I think this might even make it more difficult to port packages to other distros, not easier.

                                Anyway, developers of proprietary software stand to benefit more from this than developers of open source software. With open source software, the distribution packagers take care of packaging binaries of the program. With proprietary software, the developers themselves have to provide binaries that will run on the target systems. Unfortunately, again, I think only those distributions who are compatible with the base systems that the developers will be packaging for will stand to benefit.
                                After re-reading what I wrote in here, I've realized that I'm essentially spreading FUD. Let me just add a footnote to make a point absolutely clear: I am merely speculating on what this installer might be capable of, and what might happen. By no means am I trying to give people the impression that things absolutely will turn out the way I write in that post.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X