You are not logged in.

#1 2004-10-05 21:26:04

punkrockguy318
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2004-02-15
Posts: 711
Website

My Linux Flame Thread

As the popularity of Linux is growing, the number of Linux distributions is arising.  While choice is good, there's something I've noticed.  This is a flowchart of how software gets from developers to users in linux.

Developers code a nice program
...
Developers provide an RPM and source code
...
Package maintainers patch the code, and make there own packages from the source code... A package for every distro... So the software is being packaged like 50 times... Once for every distro... Even RPM distros must repackage it because RPMs aren't even compatible between distros.  Then after the specific package was made for the users distro, the user gets the package.

The software is being packaged like 50 times.  What a waste of work!  The packaging should be done by the developer.  They should code, package, and then the package be available to the users.  Here's how the flowchart works in Windows or Mac:

Developers code a nice program
...
Developers release a package (zip/installshield/self-extracting installer/mac pkg)
...
Users enjoy
...
If users find a problem in the package, they notify the developers and is fixed for everyone on the OS.  In Linux, there are so many problems that are mere packaging problems...

If everyone could just agree on one freaking package format, and have that package be compatible between all distros... Wow, there would be so much less redundant work packaging applications

I wish there was one central repository with all Linux packages... And all Linux distros used this repo in addition to there disto specific repo... Wouldn't that make things so much easier?

Nowadays, When i'm surfing the net for software, if it is < 5 months old, chances are, it won't work on my PC.  The binaries won't work and the source won't compile.  That shouldn't be so...

Any more flames or ideas or solutions?
[/code]


If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.   1 Corinthians 13:2

Offline

#2 2004-10-05 21:47:47

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

I agree that there should be only one package format.

Most users agree there should be only one package format.

What nobody can agree on is which package format to use! Then there's the issue of having different packages for different architectures; you can't expect the developer to maintain several architectures of computers just so they can have packages for i386, i586, i686, spac, ppc, amd64, ia64, etc etc etc.

What you failed to mention is that there already IS a standard package format:  source distribution. Its just not a very easy to use package format, and not all packages (think of java, opera, flash plugin, etc) use it.

Dusty

Offline

#3 2004-10-05 22:45:25

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

this is where LSB comes in - the suggest rpms as the standard format.

on the comparisson with windows installers, linux would need a self-executing (or close to it) installer - ala nvidia's drivers or the new firefox installer.

maybe, something to this effect is viable (what nvidia does):
installer is relatively small - has a UI of some sort... detects the current machine type (i386, i686, ppc, whatever) and downloads the appropriate package for the architecture.  if it cannot be found, it will grab the source and build it.

on an interesting note, firefox only has packages for i686.... one which has a gtk gui installer and one which doesnt (plus a windows installer)

anyone interested in working on something like this?

The Linux Universal Packager and Installer (TM)
by phrakture

hah!

Offline

#4 2004-10-05 22:50:03

punkrockguy318
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2004-02-15
Posts: 711
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

Dusty wrote:

I agree that there should be only one package format.

Most users agree there should be only one package format.

What nobody can agree on is which package format to use! Then there's the issue of having different packages for different architectures; you can't expect the developer to maintain several architectures of computers just so they can have packages for i386, i586, i686, spac, ppc, amd64, ia64, etc etc etc.

What you failed to mention is that there already IS a standard package format:  source distribution. Its just not a very easy to use package format, and not all packages (think of java, opera, flash plugin, etc) use it.

Dusty

Yes, source is the standard.  But there are many things wrong with it.  Source packages more than 3 months old probobly won't work due to the constant backwords incompatible changes of libraries and gcc.  And compiling has some general guidelines, but no real standards.  Also: source has no package management or uninstallation.

Why can't the leaders of RedHat, Debian, Suse, Mandrake and all the other major distributions get together and fix some problems with Linux?  Like deciding on a package format.. I mean LSB decided on RPM, but who really listens to that?  The leaders of all the major distros need to come together and compromise


If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.   1 Corinthians 13:2

Offline

#5 2004-10-05 22:50:33

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#6 2004-10-05 22:51:05

punkrockguy318
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2004-02-15
Posts: 711
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

And anyways, currently RPMs are incompatible between distros.  you can't even use a Suse 9.0 rpm on a Suse 9.1 machine.  How gay is that?


If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.   1 Corinthians 13:2

Offline

#7 2004-10-05 22:55:04

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

punkrockguy318 wrote:

And anyways, currently RPMs are incompatible between distros.  you can't even use a Suse 9.0 rpm on a Suse 9.1 machine.  How gay is that?

how gay?
THIS GAY

Offline

#8 2004-10-05 22:59:16

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

punkrockguy318 wrote:

Yes, source is the standard.  But there are many things wrong with it.  Source packages more than 3 months old probobly won't work due to the constant backwords incompatible changes of libraries and gcc.  And compiling has some general guidelines, but no real standards.

all these points i see positively:

- constant backwards compatibility is nonsense, because it hinders developement (compare it with nature, life and evolution: BECAUSE we are not compabile with other species (compatible=being able to mate with), we are individual and developed some features that are unique to us - the same happened to all other species) --- this way, one project can split in 2 different projects and then after some time you have 2 different software that can extend each other

- general guidelines are much better than standards: because they support diversity and also help developement (same compare to life and evolution - argumentation see point one)

punkrockguy318 wrote:

Also: source has no package management or uninstallation.

but we have pacman, that handles this - no problem here (every file should belong to one pkg in archlinux and your system is the cleanest OS you can have - pacman -Qo /some/file is the most valuable feature in pacman in my eyes)

punkrockguy318 wrote:

Why can't the leaders of RedHat, Debian, Suse, Mandrake and all the other major distributions get together and fix some problems with Linux?  Like deciding on a package format.. I mean LSB decided on RPM, but who really listens to that?  The leaders of all the major distros need to come together and compromise

because they are different species and different species only cooperate on levels, where all of them profit from, and not on levels, where they must take compromises and accept slower developement of the individuals to the value of the whole thing (if another human is attacked by some sharks, you will normally try to help this other human instead of thinking that helping the shark is better for the planet)


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#9 2004-10-05 23:04:43

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

punkrockguy318 wrote:

And anyways, currently RPMs are incompatible between distros.  you can't even use a Suse 9.0 rpm on a Suse 9.1 machine.  How gay is that?

you take RPM as a serious standard?????

by the way: you have to compile either for compatibility or optimizing for an architecture (and archlinux i686 is a good middle-way for now - where i see potential for archlinux is providing more architectures by providing repositories for them (under $server/{current,extra,...}/os/$arch/ ), but this is far future, as most code is not that easily compilable on ia64/amd64/... without trouble)


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#10 2004-10-05 23:23:19

punkrockguy318
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2004-02-15
Posts: 711
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

But don't you agree that it's a little redundant to package an application for every individual distro?  And if there was a standard package format... that was compatible between distros it would only need to be packaged twice.. source and binary...


If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.   1 Corinthians 13:2

Offline

#11 2004-10-05 23:28:24

punkrockguy318
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2004-02-15
Posts: 711
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

I know... I'll make my own package format... MPH... MyPackageHelper.  It uses the best of the worst project names 1) dashboard meter 2) MySomething  (or your somthing mind you.. yoper)..

[sarcasm]
Because making another package format will solve the problem...
[/sarcasm]


If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.   1 Corinthians 13:2

Offline

#12 2004-10-06 00:05:56

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

punkrockguy318 wrote:

that was compatible between distros it would only need to be packaged twice.. source and binary...

This is where you're wrong. It might be compatible across all distros then, but it wouldn't be compatible across all hardware. It wouldn't run on your new G5 (cause we're all gonna get one when we're rich enough...) AND on your Athlon AND on your old 386 without being recompiled...

Plus, the only way to gaurantee compatibility across libraries is if all the distros agreed to use the same version of gcc and glibc. By the time you ironed out all the compatibility issues, there would only be one distro...

But that's ok too, I really think there only needs to be one distro. I'm sure there are other people that agree with me, but they're supporting Debian and Gentoo instead of Arch, so... who wins?

Dusty

Offline

#13 2004-10-06 00:07:26

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

punkrockguy318 wrote:

But don't you agree that it's a little redundant to package an application for every individual distro?  And if there was a standard package format... that was compatible between distros it would only need to be packaged twice.. source and binary...

it is not at all redundant, if you compare the package formats as such (pkg.tar.gz, ebuild, tar.gz (slack + co), deb, rpm (rh,suse,fc,...))

but it is very redundant, if you compare the distros using one system (rpm)

also we must take care, to compare only the comparable things: you can build a binary for amd64 and make a rpm out of it - but you will run into trouble wanting to run this binary on a i486 or i686 system, so arch-specificity must be separated from the packaging (e.g. providing different repos and giving pacman or other tool the ability to _know_ what repo is containing what arch (e.g. by having /os/$arch searched automatically (you provide /url/to/repo and the programm searches automatically /url/to/repo/os/$arch )))

it may look a little redundant, that different people are working on different systems and packaging the same stuff (e.g. there is an ebuild, and PKGBUILD and a debian pkg info for the same software), but this is the way it works and has also advantages: more people are knoing details of how things are in original source and communicate with the devs of this software to make it better (the building system) and also the package-maintainers are patching things to work against newer libs and this way providing info to the devs of the software that something in an API or somewhere has to be changed to work with the newest things (see incompatibility with newest things as your point)

don't get me wrong: the incompatility of code against newest things is not a good thing, but it is unevitable, as if you use an API of a software for your software, you use one version for your software and if the API changes a little bit later and you don't use archlinux and are not -Suy all the time, you can miss to upgrade your lib you use for your software and the only way you can be informed that it do not compile is from people who run the newest libs and try to compile it (often package maintainers trying to upgrade something), so this network of people (lib-dev, app-dev, pkg-maintainer, ...) is an essential part of the opensource thing, if you want it to work and develop

also keep in mind, that in nature, redundancy is used as the most powerfull tool to create new life (=new versions, new features) - you _copy_ things and then each copy is worked on to make it better ... often make it not the same way better and develop 2 different systems

PS
sorry if i compare too much with evolution and nature and life, but i study bio and see many parallelities in developing systems


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#14 2004-10-06 00:18:33

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

Dusty wrote:

... , there would only be one distro...

But that's ok too, I really think there only needs to be one distro. I'm sure there are other people that agree with me, but they're supporting Debian and Gentoo instead of Arch, so... who wins?

see this:
http://www-5.ibm.com/e-business/uk/linu … win_hr.mpg

C. Darwin wrote:

It is not the strongest of the species that survive nor the most intelligent but the most responsive to change.

Running bleeding edge software is in some cases not the best idea, but doing so, you are save from being selected out for not being up-to-date. This is one of the big advantages running ArchLinux or Gentoo!

... and if you compare the fluctuations, archlinux and gentoo are un-stoppable. The only difference of gentoo-users and archers is: archers have a cleaner filesystem and gentoo-users did not yet realized that sharing compiling-time (by distributing binaries) is saving time and cpu cycles for more important things in life.


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#15 2004-10-06 00:40:04

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

dp wrote:

is saving time and cpu cycles for more important things in life.

such as?

Offline

#16 2004-10-06 01:51:26

aCoder
Member
From: Medina, OH
Registered: 2004-03-07
Posts: 359
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

The only difference of gentoo-users and archers is: archers have a cleaner filesystem and gentoo-users did not yet realized that sharing compiling-time (by distributing binaries) is saving time and cpu cycles for more important things in life.

Well, I guess someone did, (enter GRP), but didn't implement it very well, and the integration with source pkgs isn't nearly as clean as abs/pacman.  It seems that, in practice, it's better to have a binary pkg manager and a tool to  build pkgs from source than a from-source pkg manager that has some support for binary pkgs.  From my experience, this is very prominent, as I've seen far more users turn there backs on Gentoo than I have Slackware or Arch.  Also, gentoo-users, especially the ones who spend most of thier time on the forums, can (but many do not) develop a very nasty, 'Hey, I'm ultra-cool because I've used Gentoo longer than you.  You suck because you didn't start until 2004.1!  Go 1.4ers!' attitude.


If you develop an ear for sounds that are musical it is like developing an ego. You begin to refuse sounds that are not musical and that way cut yourself off from a good deal of experience.
  - John Cage

Offline

#17 2004-10-06 09:14:01

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

Dusty wrote:
dp wrote:

is saving time and cpu cycles for more important things in life.

such as?

pattern matching in genetics, ... the things you use your computer for - but it is for sure not compiling the whole day and night the things that others already did


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#18 2004-10-06 09:17:40

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

aCoder wrote:

The only difference of gentoo-users and archers is: archers have a cleaner filesystem and gentoo-users did not yet realized that sharing compiling-time (by distributing binaries) is saving time and cpu cycles for more important things in life.

Well, I guess someone did, (enter GRP), but didn't implement it very well, and the integration with source pkgs isn't nearly as clean as abs/pacman.  It seems that, in practice, it's better to have a binary pkg manager and a tool to  build pkgs from source than a from-source pkg manager that has some support for binary pkgs.  From my experience, this is very prominent, as I've seen far more users turn there backs on Gentoo than I have Slackware or Arch.  Also, gentoo-users, especially the ones who spend most of thier time on the forums, can (but many do not) develop a very nasty, 'Hey, I'm ultra-cool because I've used Gentoo longer than you.  You suck because you didn't start until 2004.1!  Go 1.4ers!' attitude.

he he .. this people must be freaks ... respectively i can also understand this  behaviour particularly: if you compile things for days to have your system running, you search for a good reason doing so, and social status in a community is a not-too-difficult-to-find reason ;-)


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#19 2004-10-06 14:51:24

Dreameen
Member
From: Poland
Registered: 2004-09-06
Posts: 252

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

And what about creating distros compatible only with one kind of architecture. For example, archers only for i686, distro1 for amd64, distro2 for i386 and so on...

By doing this we could eliminate the hardware specific issues with compiling packages and the work of packaging for different architectures would be split into several branches, that would be maintained by different people. Add the implementation of the standard packaging format and we have a total unification and segregation of people, based on the hardware they {preffer/can afford}. 

:twisted:  wink

Offline

#20 2004-10-06 15:05:00

phrakture
Arch Overlord
From: behind you
Registered: 2003-10-29
Posts: 7,879
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

Dreameen wrote:

And what about creating distros compatible only with one kind of architecture. For example, archers only for i686, distro1 for amd64, distro2 for i386 and so on...

By doing this we could eliminate the hardware specific issues with compiling packages and the work of packaging for different architectures would be split into several branches, that would be maintained by different people. Add the implementation of the standard packaging format and we have a total unification and segregation of people, based on the hardware they {preffer/can afford}. 

:twisted:  wink

I think the x86 paradigm is the one which throws this off.  Every non-x86 architecture has to do this already - PPC, SPARC, whatever... yet when it comes to x86 we have Intel+AMD+Cyrix+VIA with i386/i486/i586/i686 architectures.... so we splinter the x86 world even more.

Personally, I like the way arch is done... which is why I'm here 8)
I went through a bunch of distros until I found gentoo and loved their package management but HATED compiling things like kde and X.... so I started looking again.... yellowdog seemed decent, but it was arch i fell in love with.  :oops:

Offline

#21 2004-10-06 15:32:07

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

don't even get me started.....

LSB --- it can go to hell

standards should be in source but then you would likely have to choose one language in which case you would have a war on your hands.

there should be no standard package format. they all suck in some way and it should be up to the distro developers and user to decide what they want. There should be a standard manner in composing a package though (ie no /opt, all config/system files in /etc, and other such cruft)

developers of packages should retain some sort of backwards compatability for the simple reason that geek are the only people that stay on the cutting edge and like to stay there. everyone else doesn't have the time of finances to do so. so phasing out  compatability for old architectures such as 486, 586, in some standard way is best. if you cut backwards compatability at all then you will die.  i would never use an app that forces me to ditch my two yeatr old device in place of something newer then have to replace it again in two months when they phase out the two month old technology.

using darwinian logic in sw development is just dumb.

standards are needed in linux and bsd but unless you can cut down on the egos in open source then forget even trying to establish anything.

and so on and so forth


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#22 2004-10-06 15:49:42

robot5x
Member
Registered: 2004-01-26
Posts: 266

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

Even if everyone could agree on the need for a standard, linux users would probably avoid it and make up something else anyhow. It's in their nature, for chrissakes - for a large number of people part of the attraction to linux is that it is something different, that the majority of people don't use - kudos. I can come up with loads of reasons why I use linux but one of them is definitely that it's different and I can feel a bit smug when I have to go reinstall windows for my dad yet again. Me? shallow? you bet.
Of course, within the linux world this is even worse - why are there so many distros?? Because I can say to my friend that I use wibble-linux and that's much cooler than using mandrake, right?! Even better if I can tell him I'm not using rpm, but a package system where you have to translate the code into swahili then stick it on a floppy and store it in the fridge for a week before you can install it.

Offline

#23 2004-10-06 16:06:37

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

sarah31 wrote:

using darwinian logic in sw development is just dumb.

it may be, but it describes things very good


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#24 2004-10-06 16:10:23

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,378
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

robot5x wrote:

wibble-linux

where do you get it? i searched the net

http://www.google.de/search?q=wibble%20 … 8&oe=UTF-8

but wasn't able to find any distro called like this

roll  big_smile


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#25 2004-10-06 16:27:36

Dusty
Schwag Merchant
From: Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada
Registered: 2004-01-18
Posts: 5,986
Website

Re: My Linux Flame Thread

sarah31 wrote:

don't even get me started.....

indeed.... your opinions are very forcible, can we assume you have done a significant amount of research into the wide variety of areas involved, including software engineering, psychology, sociology, socioeconomics, culture, and theology?  You've written at least a PhD thesis with valid arguments supporting your opinions?  You can prove that your plan is absolutely the only way the open source world can move forwards?

standards should be in source but then you would likely have to choose one language in which case you would have a war on your hands.

not to mention a very narrow minded group of people that can only think in one way because there aren't any alternatives. Sometimes Object Oriented paradigms are best, sometimes structured are best, sometimes a logical language is best.

If we had followed this suggestion for the last 15 years or so, we'd all still be programming in Assembler or possibly C if we were lucky, web development languages like php would be illegal because they weren't the standard, The group of object oriented languages would be illegal for the same way, and we wouldn't be able to develop applications in Python (for example) and that would waste a lot of time; Its been proven that developers can program better in Python than C.

Now you might say we should settle on Python instead of C, since this is NOW and we know about Python, but of course, no we have a standard, nobody's allowed to invent a better language. And of course, Python is one language that does a lot of tasks very well, but it doesn't do everything perfectly.

there should be no standard package format. they all suck in some way

Just because all the current ones suck in some way (assuming that they do; I haven't read your thesis and have no proof that this statement is correct) doesn't mean that a standard package format could not be developed that didn't suck at all.

There should be a standard manner in composing a package though (ie no /opt, all config/system files in /etc, and other such cruft)

This is in direct conflict to your statement that LSB can go to hell... unless, of course, you think hell is a possible standard, or maybe you just think there needs to be a better standard.

developers of packages should retain some sort of backwards compatability for the simple reason that geek are the only people that stay on the cutting edge and like to stay there.

Interesting concept. So this means that the geeks that do want to stay on the cutting edge should be forced to use older packages because the rest of the world doesn't want to? Maybe there should be a distro for geeks and another distro for the rest of the world? Actually, come to think of it, there are several. Gentoo and Arch are more cutting edge, these are distros for geeks. Mandrake, Redhat, and Debian are more stable and backwards compatible; they are distros for real world use.

Without the geeks, nobody would be developing new and better programs. I don't think its right to say they shouldn't be allowed to do this because then the poor users would have to learn to use the new programs. Hell, if we had followed that strategy, nobody would even have developed the GUI programs that enable the poor users to run a computer at all.

standards are needed in linux and bsd but unless you can cut down on the egos in open source then forget even trying to establish anything.

Unfortunately, the biggest ego I've seen in this thread is yours.  We all have opinions, some are right, some are wrong. Its much easier to debate an issue if you present your opinions as possibilities. I've poked holes in your logic only because you choose to state it as fact, when it is actually just opinion, or, at best, a possibile future fact.

Forcing everybody to agree on something is just dumb. We could say "everybody should use Arch and it should be run this way and it should only run emacs", but then a lot of users would be forced into something they don't like. People are not machines; we do things in different ways. Though most people seem to think there is really only one option in (for example) the emacs vs vim debate, and everybody that chooses the other option is misguided, the truth is that some people seem to be genetically designed for the Emacs style of editing and others are designed for the vim style (actually, the editors were designed for the two different groups of people, but the principle is the same). In the same way, some distros were designed for cutting edge users that don't mind fixing what breaks, and other distros are designed for the more conservative users that don't mind being a little behind.

Dusty

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB