Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: "Beck" <beck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:29:25 -0000
Bruce Stephens wrote:
> "Beck" <beck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> But the problem still comes down to installing programs. Not
>> programs from the repositories, more specifically own downloaded
>> programs. Download a program then it decides it wants dependencies
>> so you have to get them aswell. Can a program not include all
>> dependencies required?
>
> Would that be a good thing?
>
> Probably what ought to happen is there ought to be an APT-based tool
> that gets used when you click on a .deb file. The deb contains its
> dependency information, I believe, and APT knows how to get them from
> repositories. Probably there is a suitable program, and I just don't
> know about it?
This is the sort of thing I think could make Linux much more user friendly.
Of course most people in here would say it is user friendly, but that is
easy for one to say if they have had months or years practice. To a new
user, linux is a very steep learning curve, not everybody has the time (or
the inclination) to learn that steep curve. If they can make it easier to
install programs then I believe it will be alot more attractive to alot more
people. People are used to the ease of windows and its point and click
nature. Linux can be that way and I think within 10 years we will have
distributions that will be as easy to use for joe public than windows is.
Its partially there, but not quite IMO.
>> Opera needs OpenMotif for plugins, is there any reason why they
>> cannot include that in the program setup?
>
> Maybe. But then you either have multiple copies of libmotif, or
> installing programs randomly updates the one standard copy
> (potentially breaking anything that required the old one). Better to
> let APT do it all, I'd have thought (indeed, it's possible to get an
> apt.sources line to download opera, and probably that's a better way
> to do it all).
How easy would it be to improve the dependency check on an install to say...
if libstdc++5 is not installed then install it. If it is installed, do not
install unless the previous version pre-dates the install version?
> Windows isn't a good example of how to do this; there's a reason for
> the phrase "DLL hell". And remember what happened when a security
> problem was found in zlib: generally pretty easy to fix on GNU/Linux,
> since you just update one package (and maybe one or two static
> programs); much harder on Windows.
I hear about DLL Hell quite alot but I have to say I have never had a
problem with dll files on windows. Maybe I have been fortunate or maybe
because I run just basic hardware on my computers and never use heavy
software.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ewan Mac Mahon
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Darren Davison
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- References:
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Tarquin Mills
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Ewan Mac Mahon
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Beck
- Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- From: Bruce Stephens
- OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Prev by Date: Re: CompareSoft ripping off GPL products?
- Next by Date: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Previous by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Next by thread: Re: OFT say you have our attention on M$
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
