| |||||||||||||
Deb -> Rpm?Deb -> Rpm?Posted May 14, 2012 17:19 UTC (Mon) by renox (subscriber, #23785)In reply to: Deb -> Rpm? by dgm Parent article: Fragmentation on the Linux Desktop (Is it Normal?) (Datamation)
>> So the policy issue is a weak excuse for using different tools.
>No. It's an excuse for avoid _changing_ tools. Big difference.
Sure this adds some work to Debian in the short term for the migration and less work for every ISV after the change because now they have to only learn one set of tool instead of two.
> It's even worse, because ISVs have to package for every _release_ of the distro they target.
Same situation as today then.
> What do have we won?
As already said, it makes ISV lives simpler as they can now use only one set of tools instead of two.
> The tendency is to fragmentation, not convergence,
Yes, I've noticed, Linux: ~1.5% of desktop share.
(Log in to post comments)
Deb -> Rpm? Posted May 15, 2012 9:02 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
> Yes, I've noticed, Linux: ~1.5% of desktop share.
Non sequitur. As easily I could say: Linux: ZERO viruses in the wild.
So what?
Deb -> Rpm? Posted May 15, 2012 9:19 UTC (Tue) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
>> Yes, I've noticed, Linux: ~1.5% of desktop share.
> Non sequitur. As easily I could say: Linux: ZERO viruses in the wild.
Well, not really 'non sequitur': making the life hard for ISV surely don't help Linux's market share, but I agree that the packaging format is not enough, but it would be a start (not that I believe that it can happen: for whatever reason packaging tools seems to be a topic that triggers emotional reaction..).
As for ZERO viruses in the wild, Haiku has no virus too: nobody cares about it..
Deb -> Rpm? Posted May 15, 2012 15:58 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
But Haiku doesn't seem to have millions of users (it didn't last time I looked, correct me if I'm wrong).
As for ISV's lifes: packaging format is the _least_ of their problems, really. It's something that just requires installing a few tools and can be greatly automated. The real problems are supporting the horde of Linux versions out there -each with it's own library versions, configuration files and general idiosyncrasies- and, of course, getting Linux users to pay for software...
Deb -> Rpm? Posted May 20, 2012 0:55 UTC (Sun) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
And package format is one of those idiosyncrasies. If conversion is trivial to automate as some people claim, why not do it? It's one (small) issue less. That's how progress generally happens in software, especially free software - one small issue at a time. Unite .deb and .rpm since the differences are cosmetic, then go onto the next one. Why not? Distro policies and library versions will still differ, of course, but there are real reasons for that. Fedora has newer library versions than RHEL for a reason. I cannot see why Fedora and Debian have to use different formats for packaging.
As for your [citation needed] claim that Linux users don't pay for software, have a look at RH's balance sheets or the humble indie games bundle - RH covers the enterprise market, whilst the games bundle covers the private (well, presumably it is mostly private) desktop end users. And guess what? Linux end users (those that bought the humble bundle at least) pay MORE than Windows or OSX users. Maybe because they aren't being ripped off ridiculously by Microsoft on the Windows license or by Apple's simply obscene prices for hardware? Maybe they're better people? Maybe they just wanted to put an end to claims like yours? Maybe they just have more money? Who knows, fact is, Linux users do pay, generously - even when they don't have to.
|
|||||||||||||