Ubuntu To Get Its Own Package Format, App Installer

[madjr]

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.

Actually you were right with your original post.

The current systems are full of limitations: http://0install.net/comparison.html

Thus why many projects have tried to improve the situation, but is now that a big distro is adopting such features, in order to better compete and take marketshare away from the main OSs.

Ubuntu in particular needs to separate core from apps:

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1246

Of course we need to help keep users within a centralized apps market in order for them to stay as secure as possible, but people keep going out to get 3rd party PPAs, etc. which can be a security risk too, so there's no secure situation right now either, just lots of fragmentation and user frustration with not being able to update apps without a command line that can usually break other software and replace libraries/dependencies. So this is to help with that.

Lots of trolls may say that ubuntu doesnt need or worse like its going to kill linux or something and that's BS.

[intellivision]

Similiar to my feelings about the GPL. As a software developer that needs money to pay my rent, pay for my lunch and so on, I hate the GPL. It's retarded in being infectious. Sure, you can sell your software but only one person will purchase it and can then rename it, put it on a website, and sell it for 1/4 of the price.

As a user, I love the GPL because it gives me the ability to do anything with it.

Is it normal to be so split about such things?

You can release under the GPL, then only offer the source code i.e. no binaries.
Won't stop some determined people, but it will stop a lot. They do the same with Ardour.

[nzmm]

reading for the win

Please someone, kill those guys who use python to write system tools and apps.

they are still prototyping, from the mailing list:

current prototype implementation in Python; a later implementation could be in C

[n3wu53r]

You can release under the GPL, then only offer the source code i.e. no binaries.
Won't stop some determined people, but it will stop a lot. They do the same with Ardour.

Aurdour is extremely complicated software written by a highly skilled and trained professional, who also has a family. He targets to get $4500 a month.

Ardour barely brings in $2000 a month.
https://community.ardour.org/news Look at the finance pane on the right side.

[buggzeerra]

Aurdour is extremely complicated software written by a highly skilled and trained professional, who also has a family. He targets to get $4500 a month.

Ardour barely brings in $2000 a month.
https://community.ardour.org/news Look at the finance pane on the right side.

Christ. Every once in a while, somebody dumps such a load of bollocks on an internet forum that requires you to register a user name just to set the record straight.

Ardour is making more money than it's worth, and the developer is only relatively skilled within Linux audio, but he's quite mediocre by Mac or Windows standards. I wasted a month of my life attempting to use Ardour3, it crashes every 5 minutes if you try to do anything other than just record a microphone, and the Ardour bugtracker reflects this truth.

They allow Harrison to make a closed source DAW with the Ardour GPL code, which only sells for $45 and is not popular at all because adding Harrison DSP doesn't make Ardour suck any less. They also have a Mac port of Ardour that nobody uses, because it doesn't begin to compare to real DAWs like Logic, Digital Performer and Protools.

[Ibidem]

Please someone, kill those guys who use python to write system tools and apps.

Oh, you want to get rid of Canonical and Red Hat and HP and the wicd developers?
Red Hat-yum
HP-hplip
wicd needs python

(I personally don't like this trend, but it's not solely Canonical's devising; I get the impression that Red Hat has done more to contribute to system bloat than anyone else.)

[Ericg]

Oh, you want to get rid of Canonical and Red Hat and HP and the wicd developers?
Red Hat-yum
HP-hplip
wicd needs python

(I personally don't like this trend, but it's not solely Canonical's devising; I get the impression that Red Hat has done more to contribute to system bloat than anyone else.)

A well written python app will be just as fast as a C or C++ app unless you optimize the C or C++ app in some way (beyond just best practices). Also python is easier for maintenance so theres a bump in its direction. This flies directly at the same age old argument... do you use a custom written hand tuned algorithm thats fast, but a nightmare to maintain. Or do you go for a slightly slower one, that still gets the job done, thats easier to maintain? Personally, I prefer longterm maintenance benefits from easy to read code.

[gigaplex]

And in 1990 i'd agree...but this is 2013, storage is cheap. I can (and did) go out and get a 1TB external USB3.0 HDD for $75, so who cares? They're all being kept in their own app's folder so its not even like theyre all flooding /usr/lib

I'd surely like to see you install that 1TB drive into your phone. Since, you know, that's where this packaging work is mostly focussed towards.

[Sonadow]

I'd surely like to see you install that 1TB drive into your phone. Since, you know, that's where this packaging work is mostly focussed towards.

USB drive to phone connection. There are many adapters that allow for this already.

The only obstacle is support for external USB devices at the operating system level.

[Delgarde]

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.

That's just not true - the GPL gives the developer the right to do something they would otherwise have no right to do, namely use their code in your product. It's not quite so unrestrictive as some licenses, but it's more than you get by default.

Edit: or do you mean the developer of the GPL code? It's not clear whether you object to releasing your own code under GPL, or to being forced to by using other people's GPL code...