| |||||||||||||
Day: GNOME OSDay: GNOME OSPosted Aug 8, 2012 14:19 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Day: GNOME OS by krake Parent article: Day: GNOME OS
Well the guy doesn't know how they really do it on OS X.
And yes it is comparing update methods. They need to do what they do in order to deal with some of the bad aspects of how Linux installs packages.
They could ignore that completely and have each user install Chrome in their home directory, but apparently it is easier to write a bunch of code to work around rpm/deb-style package management then to try to convince Linux users to not depend on rpm/deb for installing and updating Chrome/Chromium.
He also seems to indicate that it's not going to be a issue with them on Chromium OS.
(Log in to post comments)
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 8, 2012 14:40 UTC (Wed) by krake (subscriber, #55996) [Link]
"And yes it is comparing update methods."
Well, than the blog posting is without merrit.
Like complaining that parallel processing with child processes needs extra work when accessing shared data and stating that multi threading would make that way easier.
"They could ignore that completely and have each user install Chrome in their home directory..."
Or globally.
"...but apparently it is easier to write a bunch of code to work around rpm/deb-style package management then to try to convince Linux users to not depend on rpm/deb for installing and updating Chrome/Chromium."
Well, if it is easier to deal with app store limitations than not to be in the app store than that is a conscient choice. Complaining on how easy it would have been not to be in the app store is just whining.
So marketing (or managment) decided that being in the app store outweights extra engineering effort. Deal with it!
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 8, 2012 16:19 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
The issue is that they don't want to have to restart Chrome/ium after an update. And they don't want to deal with version skew between different files. Their solution seems reasonable to me overall.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 8, 2012 16:24 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Seems that he thinks it's much easier task to accomplish if they didn't have to deal with Linux apt/rpm style updates.
Day: GNOME OS Posted Aug 9, 2012 8:31 UTC (Thu) by krake (subscriber, #55996) [Link]
True, but they decided that getting into the app stores made the additional engineering costs acceptable.
They could have avoided the issues by going the route of a stand-alone installer but obviously found it more viable to do it the other way.
|
|||||||||||||