klik://kspread-1.5-beta is cool (as is the kword one) [LWN.net]

klik://kspread-1.5-beta is cool (as is the kword one)

Posted Feb 1, 2006 21:39 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670)
In reply to: klik://kspread-1.5-beta is cool (as is the kword one) by kobserver
Parent article: KOffice 1.5 beta 1 Released (KDE.News)

I don't really get this 'klik' thing. How about just giving me binary
tarballs instead? (I understand there might be problems with crappy apps
using hard coded paths, but that's not something klik can solve either
unless running as root, so I'll accept having to decompress the crappy
ones to a fixed path.)

When I just want to try one new app without pain, I surely don't want to
know about a second new app. And if it fills a void left by the package
managers (whatever that may be), wouldn't it be more proper to fix those
package managers for everybody instead of installing a second package
management system for me?

(Log in to post comments)

klik://kspread-1.5-beta is cool (as is the kword one)

Posted Feb 1, 2006 22:56 UTC (Wed) by kobserver (guest, #30087) [Link]

I'd be most interested to hear about your remaining (or newly occuring) questions after you've read the klik FAQ.

There it is explained that

klik is not a package manager, and doesn't strife to be one nor replace one,
how klik works,
which problems klik solves and which gaps it fills.

klik://kspread-1.5-beta is cool (as is the kword one)

Posted Feb 2, 2006 12:29 UTC (Thu) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

Forgive my ignorance, but after reading I hardly see the benefits at all.
I would have expected it to at least run the app in a chroot, if the idea
is for a way to try new software without the risk of introducing
problems. Or at least being a distro-neutral package manager targeted
towards more bleeding edge software, hopefully with at least some
security so you don't have to run untrusted binaries.

The whole point of Klik seems to be to run binaries from a
loopback-mounted archive the spare the user the unarchiving step. The
price here is 1) the software may not be the same as when you want to
install it "permanently", i.e. through your package manager, 2) you don't
get any updates for packages downloaded through Klik, 3) you have to
learn how to use yet another software, Klik, which is what you wanted to
avoid in the first place, and 4) you run untrusted binaries blindly on
your system.

Forgive me for being slightly elitist on this last point, but the install
process scares me. Running code directly from something called
klik.atekon.de strikes me as something a Windows user would do, as in
untrusted ActiveX components etc. I don't want to be ungrateful, and Klik
probably works wonders for some people, this is just not something I
would like to see my users doing.

But the URL handler interface is really nice, I'll give them that. It
will be a happy day when these ideas trickles down into package
management systems and they get as easy to use as Klik.

klik://kspread-1.5-beta is cool (as is the kword one)

Posted Feb 2, 2006 15:01 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]

the whole point of klik is that you can klik a file and it'll start a program. and you didn't have to install it, you didn't need root password and you didn't put it in a special place. you also can give it to someone else, and it'll run immediately.

it is NOT a package manager, as it doesn't manage any packages.
you say it has these disadvantages:
1. software is not the same as it is when you install it permanently:
duh, no, it is for testing pre-release software as user.
2. you don't get updates
nope, you get a new package if you want (1 click on the site)
3. you have to learn another package maanger
what? you click the package and it runs? learn?????
4. you run untrusted binaries
well, if you don't trust the debian archives AND don't trust the page you got the klik package from, its untrusted... but as i trust both, i wouldn't call it untrusted.

again, you don't install it - you only run it. as soon as you close the app, it gets unmounted and it didn't change anything. so, again, it is a safe way of running (but not installing) portable software while the author did not have to compile it statically (inflating its size).