'Nope :) I don't want to "apt-get install" software, or "yum install" software, I want to be able to go to a website on my Linux Desktop, click on "download this application for Linux" and have it just install and work.'
When you say it like that, it sounds like you just want to be like everyone else, its worth examining why you want that. Im sure its deeper than just what buttons/commands you use to get a new app.
Perhaps what you really want is to be able go 'direct to the manufacture' rather than through a third party, to have a quality guarantee (you get want what others are getting, not a variation).
Or maybe you do only care are which buttons you press ?
Posted Mar 31, 2012 13:00 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
When you say it like that, it sounds like you just want to be like everyone else, its worth examining why you want that.
Because ubiquitous internet changed things? Because it's now feasible to download monsters like Photoshop? Because today users expect the ability to play with something after they've read the press-release or talked with a friend?
Im sure its deeper than just what buttons/commands you use to get a new app.
Well, yes. The times, they are changing. 10 years ago it was Ok to be ignorant about some new piece of software or some new game: it was hard to get it, sometimes you needed to hunt for it, some stores were out of stock. Today if you don't react instantly you are perceived as retarded. It's quite Ok to say "well, I don't like violence so I've skipped Left 4 Dead". But when you talk about virtues of GIMP or OpenOffice.org and someone says "well, cool, can you help me with understanding the features of a new release" and you answer "no, it's not yet in my distro, come back year from now" then it goes beyond embarrassment. You are falling out of your social group. And this is important - especially for younger people.
You get want what others are getting, not a variation.
Yup. That's the thing. Desktop have reached regular people and now fashion is the king. People don't want to be perceived as old-fashioned. They want to play Angry Birds Seasons when it's hot, not when it's few years old! And, as quite an opposite trend, some want to keep older “comfortable and weared in” versions around. Distributions basically impose “it's my way or the highway”: you can pick from the given selection of goods but the assortment is centrally planned and provided.
Free is too expensive (Economist)
Posted Apr 2, 2012 0:54 UTC (Mon) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link]
> Distributions basically impose “it's my way or the highway”: you can pick from the given selection of goods but the assortment is centrally planned and provided.
This used to be a source of frustration for me, until I switched to Arch Linux. This is for two reasons:
It is quite easy to develop package build scripts;
It has a semi-official repository of user-contributed package build scripts.
As a consequence, it's much easier to use software that's not in the distribution. It's even possible to replace major infrastructure components (like installing the latest Git snapshot of Mesa with the experimental i915g driver), which would be a major hassle on dpkg/rpm-based distributions.
Free is too expensive (Economist)
Posted Apr 2, 2012 13:27 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link]
Having RPM spec files available for such stuff would be easy (for Fedora) and many source packages include the build machinery for Debian, but nobody has stepped up do organize "third party" repositories of said stuff. I did rebuild some packages for new versions (or local configurations) on Fedora and CentOS semi-routinely, but the need diminished over time due to better integration and more agressive upstream tracking.
Perhaps the non-existence of such repositories for other distributions is due to their users not indulging in routine wholesale recompilation, prefering a uniform, vetted set of packages instead...