Tweet
When you think about the "first" attempt of a steam client it is more likely that every data is hold in your home. That means that what U will get is just an icon and a small download tool - which could be easyly be a script - i wrote my own script a few years ago to do that. Steam usually verifies/updates the client on start so i do not think they will ask for a root pw every time there is an update.
-
-
Pretty much the way Desura does it, and I think it's the best overall solution.Comment
-
people are expecting too much, in the end it will be just like desura :P, which is fine.Comment
-
You don't get it. The binaries inside the package are fine. The problem is the package itself. It is not cross-distro because even if you did convert it to an RPM, it would conflict/break an RPM-based system, and same goes with different versions of Ubuntu and Debian and other DEB distros even, you could break things because each package is really only designed for a single distro/version, they are not made to be cross-distro and to be installable anywhere. The reason is because they were not designed to be. It is a failure of the packaging format and/or packager implementations. The only packaging format / installer I know of which does use standards and is cross-distro are ones which place every dependency in a totally separate location to make sure they can co-exist with the alien target system. That means installers /packages which unpack all libraries and executables into a new directory like /opt or /home/user/blah, or packaging systems like Zero Install which place everything into a "cache" store which, again, doesn't touch the alien host at all so it doesn't have the potential to break anything by overwriting libraries and binaries it shouldn't (since it doesn't have the knowledge the native package manager has).Originally posted by johnc View Post
Uh, yeah, like basically every distro and distro version has incompatible packages. Sure, it may be rare in certain situations where the difference is smaller, or where they renamed files more intelligently (libblah-1.2, libblah1.3, instead of just libblah) but breaking things is possible even between versions of Ubuntu. I don't know of one distro that has tried to correct this problem or fix their package managers/formats in order to allow for any and all libraries and programs to be installed, i.e. create actual universal packages. If this was done, and enough metadata was included in the RPM or DEB package format type, it should be able to cope properly with any situation and it should be installable on any distro with a package manager which was compatible with universal package formats. You could have a package manager be compatible with both RPMs AND DEBs, for example, if both package formats contained all the information necessary to allow them to be placed onto the system without hurting it, and if the programs were compiled properly to allow for this flexability.Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
The real reason this is not done is - in the same legacy of the proprietary UNIXes - to lock users into one "platform" in order to create artificial dependency on the distro's parent company. I don't want to see the same lockin that the UNIXes went through become commonplace in the Linux community. Even worse is when ignoramouses and shills endorse the idea, muddying the waters and confusing the real issues.
Yeah, me being concerned about freedoms and standards and other problems with using GNU/Linux is spreading FUD, thaaaaaaaanks...Originally posted by Naib View PostThere is none
This is the problem at the moment and it comes from quite a few years of FUD, FUD like "too many distro's you can't get it working for all" or "linux is not stable [from a lib point of view]""
WRONG
#1 Too many distro
Not really, the VAST majority are derivatives...
#2 Linux is not stable (from a library point of view)
Again bullshit!!! its alot more binary ABI stable that windows is.
So, ignoring that part...
#1: I don't care how many "distros" there are. It's great that there are bundles of software to get someone up and going quickly. There needs to be. You can't tell someone to go download 1,000 different programs before they have a functional OS, that would be stupid. The problem is with distro corporations and the lack of cross-distro installation standards, as stated above.
#2: Never said that, you're right, Linux has a stable ABI. Again, you're the one who doesn't understand what I'm talking about. The problem is with packaging formats not being good enough and capable of getting any binary installed properly, i.e. a lack of installation and packaging standards. This is really really easy to see, and you have to be living under a rock or compiling everything from source not to see the problems that everyone who doesn't want to run around the net chasing dependencies faces (even if you're compiling everything from source, you still face dependency hell though). Most Linux software projects don't even offer a simple binary for download because of the lack of cross-distro installer standards, and this hurts the community. Even when they do offer a simple binary tarred/zipped/compressed that you should be able to run, try actually running them sometime. You'll find that most of them fail due to missing libraries. This is proof of at least two huge problems:
1. The lack of standards which exists with Linux right now as far as expected installed libraries.
2. The lack of packaging standards, for if these existed it would be in package form, and would automatically call for the dependencies.
Again, if you haven't faced any of these problems before, I don't know what to tell you other than you apparently have been only living inside the restricted walled garden of your distro's repository and have not actually tried to download and run many binaries from projects which haven't been blessed to live inside your walled garden.
No one is saying Ubuntu hasn't helped, but attributing it to a corporation is fallacy. There could have just as easily, and would have been, a large part of the open source community pushing ease-of-use. That sentiment existed at the time of Ubuntu's creation, and ended up stealing all those who were concerned about that and wanted an Easy Linux. That doesn't mean the corporation was necessary, and Mark Shuttleworth is still trying to make money with it, and thus there is still the artificial scarsity momentum there. For those who don't understand what I mean, here you go: How do you get someone to pay you money for support instead of going to someone else for support? One way is to make your thing proprietary, so that you control it and modify it and thus you end up understanding it the most and making it harder for others to understand it. You also make program support, updates etc, require unique Ubuntu-specific updates. If Ubuntu or Red Hat Enterprise Linux or others used a universal packaging system, users would not be fated to be reliant on those parent support companies. They would be free to go to any source, even, god forbid, the actual developers of the software. That's right, them or their software update systems could go directly to Mozilla for Firefox updates. The horror!!!Originally posted by blackout23 View Post
So in order to prevent that from happening and to lock users into their service business models, the current system was born, leaving broken standards, broken freedom, and a lot of usability and software sharing and packaging problems in it's wake. Until users wake up and start pushing for real actual standards, they will continue to get away with it.
Comment
-
You sure about that? I don't think Ubuntu users alone especially with it's dwindling base is the sole reason for this.Originally posted by blackout23 View PostComment
-
-
http://bkhome.org/blog/?viewDetailed=00468 =) first on google
Mint toped distrowatch with Mageia in second.
Mint didn't build it's base out of thin air.
Edit: I forgot to insult you.
How you're trying to come across as pretentious without a period in a four word sentence/statement is beyond me. Please feel free to prove me wrong that users aren't fleeing to Mint/Mageia/Fedora/Arch/Gentoo faster than Ubuntu can replenish.Last edited by nightmarex; 03 September 2012, 10:04 PM.Comment
-
Distrowatch doesn't actually tell us anything since all it does is track what pages users viewed ON DISTROWATCH the most. People who are currently happy with their distro and aren't looking for a new one are unlikely to be on distrowatch.Originally posted by nightmarex View Post
I'm afraid that's not how it works. You posited that Ubuntu's userbase was dwindling, and for anyone to take that claim as anything but ludicrous you need to provide at least SOME evidence that this is true.Originally posted by nightmarex View PostComment
-
nice read
india at %160 percent, cool
no doubt ubuntu is growing, and its obvious linux as a whole is a bit, although its still only ~%2 of the world
febuary seems good, as long as it releases before windows8 gets traction, by simply plastering the ubuntu logo onto a new valve game advertizement, us linux people can get quite a steal on next years operating system decisionsComment
Comment