| |||||||||||||
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)Posted Mar 16, 2010 15:05 UTC (Tue) by trasz (guest, #45786)In reply to: QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) by dgm Parent article: QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com)
It makes sense for pretty much everything - and that's the reason why iPhone not only has several times more applications than any other mobile platform, but also why it gains applications faster than any other mobile platform.
(Log in to post comments)
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 10:28 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] So you're arguing in favor of a central package repository for smartphones, but elsewhere ("you just open a "folder" [...] and drag application over the "Applications" shortcut") you're arguing that a central package repository isn't necessary for desktop OSes? How does that make sense? Central package repositories are a good idea, for the reason's you said (no malware, etc). One of the major benefits of Linux distributions is that they have such central package repositories, unlike Windows and Mac OS X. However, the fact that a central package repository exists should not mean that the user is locked in to that repository. That is what people are objecting to about the iPhone: the lock-in. Worse, it's a lock-in that may even be enforced by law in the US (by the DMCA).
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 13:17 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
I never said central package repository isn't neccessary for desktop systems. Actually, I think it is a very good idea.
However, I'm not sure whether the dependencies, as used in Linux distributions, are a good idea. These are two orthogonal things.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 16:25 UTC (Wed) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > I never said central package repository isn't neccessary for desktop systems. But you said this: > As for installing OSX applications - usually you just open a "folder" (actually, a filesystem image that mounts itself when you click it) and drag application over the "Applications" shortcut. To uninstall, you go to the Applications folder and remove the application icon. No instructions neccessary. In that usage scenario you described, there's no central package repository, is there?
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 18, 2010 8:56 UTC (Thu) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
Yes, but it's still orthogonal. Take a look at PC-BSD, for example - there is a central repository, but there is no need for dependencies, because packages contain their dependencies, like in OSX.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 21, 2010 1:59 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > Yes, but it's still orthogonal. Not entirely; having a central repository is a prerequisite for automatic dependency resolution. However, that's beside the point I was trying to make, which was this: you were apparently claiming that Mac OS X does not need a central package repository (because it's good enough to just download "a filesystem image that mounts itself when you click it" from the app developer's website and then "drag application over the "Applications" shortcut.") while at the same time claiming that the iPhone does need its central repository, the App Store (and also claiming that it's a good thing that users are locked in to the App Store).
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 26, 2010 9:44 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
It's a good thing to have a central package repository, for both phones (e.g. iPhone) and "normal" computers (e.g. Linux, FreeBSD or Solaris). Being restricted from using software from other sources has advantages (no malware, no piracy etc) and disadvantages. Works pretty well for iPhone, might or might not work for "normal" computers. Would be great if Apple provided a central repository for OSX applications, but without forcing everyone to use it. Still, the way of installing OSX applications is less burdensome than using dependencies-based package system, which, as demonstrated below, might force you to e.g. upgrade all the software you have when you need just a newer version of one application.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 17, 2010 16:36 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes! We don't need a dependency tracking system because, uh, because Apple doesn't have one.
This is *definitely* argumentum ad pomum.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 18, 2010 8:59 UTC (Thu) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]
You know, I used a dependency-based systems for a couple of years. They suck, for reasons described below (in most cases to upgrade anything you have to upgrade everything). Apple way of dealing with it is just much less hassle for the user.
QA with Matt Asay: How Linux is Beating Apple and Much More (Linux.com) Posted Mar 18, 2010 11:52 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
That's a gross overstatement. You have to upgrade lots of things only if a major version of something has changed, or a critical bug's been fixed, *and* every other package has also shifted to the new major version of the package.
If you have every package keeping its libraries separate, then fixing a bug in one of those libraries means you really do have to go and upgrade the lot *by hand*.
We were doing this right in the flipping *60s*. Has everyone forgotten the lessons of Multics?
|
|||||||||||||