🚀 go-pugleaf

Manfred Bartz (mbartz@werple.net.au) wrote:

: I gave two examples in my previous post.

: My objections are against proprietary and non-standard package
: systems. 

The RPM format is open and clearly documented and the source code is GPL. 

I can't think of any way it could be less proprietary.

Unless of course your definition of proprietary is defines as "!= .tgz".

: I don't have any objections against tar-balls in binary or source
: form.  All tar-balls I am aware of can be used and/or built on many
: different UNIX systems based on many different architectures.  All of
: these systems are readily supported in the relevant news groups and
: mailing lists.

So a tarball containing exactly the same source/binary as a .rpm or .deb
is inherently better?

: The two examples I gave highlight proprietary features of RedHat
: packages as encountered in ``comp.os.linux.x'' and on the ``fvwm
: mailing list''.  The generic news group and mailing list support does
: not work there anymore, and users are dependent on RedHat's support.

Can you be more specific as to the exact problems you have seen?

RedHat's mailing lists are free. If RedHat was to go the way of the
dinosaur tomorrow, their distribution is still free.

: I already said that I believe package management is a useful system
: administration tool, especially if you have many computers and you are
: the sys-admin.  However, I object to promoting package management
: along the lines of:
:   ``Use xyz distribution, it's so easy to install that you don't need to
:   know anything.  Everything will be done for you.  The xyz distribution
:   is so good that you can stay completely computer illiterate while
:   getting at least some use out of the system.'' 

Why? The Apple Mac has been doing just that for nearly 14 years, do you
think that doing this under Linux is fundamentally impossible?

: No doubt, it serves a lot of people to have interfaces that allow them
: to get some work done without knowing anything about computers.  And
: there is nothing wrong with that.  But those users are not required to
: be in charge of their computers; they have a sys-admin to rely on or a
: computer dealer who (hopefully) fulfills that role.  I see promotion
: of the Windoze way of doing things as counter-productive, at least in
: the long term.  In short: Mollycoddling promotes dependency.

Servers need sysadmins, home workstations should not and do not. 

I agree that users should understand how to install software, but to
expect for (say) my mother to compile her wordprocesser from a .tgz is
patently ridiculous. 

Nor should she have to rely on a third party (who will most likely
charge) to run her machine for her.

The compromise is, of course, package management.

Regards,
Damien Miller

| WWW: http://silicon.vitnet.com.sg
| PGP public key: send me an email with "send file pgp_key" as the subject