Some GUADEC notes [LWN.net]

Some GUADEC notes

Posted Aug 19, 2010 22:21 UTC (Thu) by elanthis (guest, #6227)
Parent article: Some GUADEC notes

The problem with viruses on Windows has a lot to do with the software ecosystem on Windows, which is entirely different than on Linux. On Windows, you get software by browsing the Web and clicking a Download link on some site.

On Linux, you either magically know the cryptic package name of the software you want or browse the packages in a huge bloated repository, and then hope that the software you want is actually packaged for your distro and that it is actually up to date (and if it's not, you generally have to wait 6+ months for the next version of the distro to roll out, and then you upgrade EVERYTHING to get one package updated).

The Windows way is far, far, far more user and developer friendly. Users don't find software by browsing a freaking package repo. They find software from friends sending them links or with Google, or links off of other sites. The Linux method requires finding that software, then transitioning to another app to find it AGAIN to get it installed. Gross. The Windows way is better for developers because it gives them the ability to create ready-to-go installers instead of having to wait for half a dozen popular distributions (and hundreds more of unpopular ones) to actually package up the software, which may take months to years after the software first comes out.

The Windows way is also more dangerous, because there is no central authority in charge of the software and installers. Thus, anti-virus software is needed to protect users from themselves. Windows itself is not inherently super insecure. I know more than a few people who've never used anti-virus software and never gotten a virus on their comptuers, because they are idiots and they don't download random crap from random sites that nobody with a clue would ever trust. Most people are uneducated and clueless, though.

I whole-heartedly believe that Linux needs to at least support the Windows software distribution model to really meet Ubuntu bug #1. There is more software out there than even Debian's 15,000 package repository scratches the surface of. There are applications that need frequent updates to even be useful (e.g., tax software) that can't wait for 6-month release cycles There are users who need bug fixes when the app is released, not when some unrelated packager gets around to updating the distro's updates repository. There are applications that -- plain and simple -- are proprietary and will never be in ubuntu's or Fedora's repos, but real users really want and would rather not have a computer than live without (e.g., games, which the Linux folks CONSTANTLY underestimate the extreme importance of to regular everyday home users).

When (or more likely if; I doubt it'll happen soon, if ever) Linux distros start shipping at least an installer packager to supplement their core repos with a distro-neutral package format (that can also automatically install an update URL for PackageKit to check) that is friendly to componentized software (e.g., not just a single big huge RPM you download and install, but a package that can let the installer look at a URL to grab dependencies not in the core repo) and software on multiple-disc media (many games are coming out requiring 2 or more DVDs for all the content), Linux will find itself in need of anti-virus software.

If the distros would stop cock-blocking software like AutoPackage and other failed attempts at installation software, they could actually realize that there's a huge strength in buildign in a standardized third party software installation tool. Windows is a mess because there are a billion different installers, and anti-virus software basically has to scan every .exe ever run. With a unified, single installer that all third-party software has to go through (what Microsoft is slowly trying to get with .msi, but for legacy reasons it has a loooong way to go) you can remove a lot of the bloat of anti-virus software by only really needing to run it at install time. It wouldn't be fool-proof, but nothing is, and it would be Enough(tm) for most cases.

Unfortunately, the distros are too focused on imposing as many artificial barriers of incompatibility between each other as they possibly can, while forcing users to use a central repository as much as possible to maintain control. They claim its for protection and stability, but at best it's laziness and at worst it's just user hostility.

(Log in to post comments)

Some GUADEC notes

Posted Aug 20, 2010 7:45 UTC (Fri) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]

> that it is actually up to date (and if it's not, you generally have to wait 6+ months for the next version of the distro to roll out, and then you upgrade EVERYTHING to get one package updated).

That is true and certainly very bad. But it doesn't need the "windows way" to get fixed. Providing newer versions of selected apps with repository model without full upgrade of distro is possible, as done in debian-volatile. However, it requires that the application developer is careful enough not constantly move to using new features of underlying OS libraries.

> The Windows way is far, far, far more user and developer friendly. Users don't find software by browsing a freaking package repo.

Not true. Don't think windows, think Apple. iPhone App store specifically. Not on desktops yet (apart from steam), but the "browse package repo" model is very much there, easier to use, and I have no doubt it will come to Desktops eventually.

Why is it more easier to use? when googling, you get links to lots of stuff that a) isn't application b) isn't application for your system. In a app store every search result is a application for your system. App store also puts a limit on malware and crapware if there is some QA control, user feedback loop and recall feature included. The repository model provides fixes and updates of installed applications automatically. In windows model most apps get never upgraded after installed, while other applications create their own updaters.

The only use experience difference (lets ignore that app store bans GPL and ubuntu propiertary software for the sake of discussing just UX) between app store and say ubuntu software central is that developers contribute directly to app store while in ubuntu it is typically done by ubuntu developers. Now of course the upstream can contribute directly to ubuntu, and some do. However, they really don't make it clear and certainly make it a hassle to do so.

> The Windows way is better for developers because it gives them the ability to create ready-to-go installers instead of having to wait for half a dozen popular distributions (and hundreds more of unpopular ones) to actually package up the software

Now this is the real problem. However, windows model won't fix it. Instead of making packages for dozens of distros, they would need to make their installer support dozens of distros. Not a big win.

The only solution is to make most distros die. Kill one linux distribution by implementing its added value in a mainstream distro and we are one step towards global domination. Unlikely to happen, distro developers are too emotionally attached to their own distributions to let go.

However, the time is on our side. More and more software needs not be installed at all. How many of your non-tech friends install local email client instead of reading gmail in a browser? Instead of installing inkscape why not point your browser to http://muro.deviantart.com/ ? Tax software, why on earth would something that needs essentially forms and buttons be a installable binary that needs regular updates? With WebGL a good deal of games can be implemented within browser. And other emerging html5 features continue to push more applications to the browser.

Linux vs Windows software availability

Posted Aug 20, 2010 23:55 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

The only solution is to make most distros die. Kill one linux distribution by implementing its added value in a mainstream distro and we are one step towards global domination.

Isn't the ultimate implementation of this idea to merge all versions of Linux into Windows?

Long ago, Bill Gates defended some Microsoft monopolistic actions by saying computers would be a lot easier to use if everyone had the same kind. Though there are obvious drawbacks to that, we're talking today about how right he was about that.

One reaction I had to the original comment is that it arbitrarily collects all Linux together and compares it to Windows, as one platform. Wouldn't it be more logical comparison to ask what it would take to make Fedora as easy to add stuff to as Windows? And then the answer is pretty simple: as many users as Windows has.

Linux vs Windows application installability

Posted Aug 21, 2010 0:07 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

However, the time is on our side. More and more software needs not be installed at all. How many of your non-tech friends install local email client instead of reading gmail in a browser?

That's a funny way of defining "on our side." It's like saying, "time is on this multiple sclerosis sufferer's side, because he also has cancer and will be dead before the MS gets really bad."

You're pointing out that technology is swinging back toward centrally maintained computers with simple terminals, and there are no complexities of installing new applications on a simple terminal. You take gmail as Google gives it to you, period.

Online tax software

Posted Aug 26, 2010 14:15 UTC (Thu) by markhb (guest, #1003) [Link]

"Tax software, why on earth would something that needs essentially forms and buttons be a installable binary that needs regular updates?"

Because many users prefer to keep their tax records to themselves rather than trusting them to Joe's Tax Prep Site (even if Joe's Site is actually quicken.com).

Some GUADEC notes

Posted Aug 30, 2010 15:25 UTC (Mon) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]

> If the distros would stop cock-blocking software like AutoPackage and other failed attempts at installation software, they could actually realize that there's a huge strength in buildign in a standardized third party software installation tool.

Another way of doing this would be to have a meta-package format that can be used to generate .debs, .rpms and whatever. Then upstream authors could include such a meta-package build script with their software, and use it themselves to provide packages for any distributions they cared about (with users building binary packages for anything the developers couldn't handle and sending them back to the developers). And distribution people could send back packaging fixes to the build script (or to the maintainers of the meta-packaging system when appropriate) to ensure that the resulting packages fitted in with their distributions rules and requirements.