| |||||||||||||
Installer? No, thanks!Installer? No, thanks!Posted Dec 2, 2004 16:24 UTC (Thu) by debacle (subscriber, #7114)In reply to: Installer by zonker Parent article: A look at Xfce 4.2
I'm a XFCE user for some years now and like it very much. But I don't know what the installer is good for. All GNU/Linux distributions have some kind of package management. On my distro of choice, I type apt-get install xfce4, on other distros it's similar. Installers are a bad thing from the evil planet Windows. Installers destroy sane dependency handling and the consistency of your OS. Just say no.
(Log in to post comments)
Installer? No, thanks! Posted Dec 2, 2004 19:03 UTC (Thu) by coolian (guest, #14818) [Link] What about when your distro doesn't package it, or there is some otherunforseen occurence? Just say "yes" to flexibility.
Installer? No, thanks! Posted Dec 6, 2004 16:56 UTC (Mon) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] Switch to a distro that offers more flexibility?
Installer? No, thanks! Posted Dec 2, 2004 19:46 UTC (Thu) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link] Because Windows installers can't do sane dependencies it doesn't mean it has to be a feature of all installers. I don't see why we can't have an installer that retreives debs for perfect integration on a debian machine, rpm for red hat and others, a LSB one if the system is compliant and finally compile from source on other systems.
Installer? No, thanks! Posted Dec 3, 2004 7:10 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] Here's an installer for you:
cat "deb http://mysite/ a b" >> /etc/apt/sources.list
And then let the user's package management tool (apt-get, aptitude, synaptic, whatever) handle the rest.
|
|||||||||||||