🚀 go-pugleaf

nick@zeta.org.au (Nick Andrew) writes:

> In <m2sot8e41w.fsf@reddwarf.aup.com.au> Manfred Bartz <mbartz@werple.net.au> writes:
> 
> >I disagree on this point.  While all distributions have their own
> >idiosyncrasies, the ones relying heavily on package management are
> >much more problematic.  
> 
> Can you give an example of where the idiosyncrasies are problematic?

I gave two examples in my previous post.

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

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.

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.

> I'm running almost all systems on RedHat prepackaged code now and have
> probably saved hundreds or thousands of hours of building, testing,
> copying and installing stuff. Most ``raw'' packages (e.g. .tar.gz files
> in the GNU ftp archives) are packaged for reasonably easy building and
> installation -- on a single host. They don't readily lend themselves to
> being built on one host and installed on many; you then get to invent
> your own duplication mechanism.

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.'' 

> >For a
> >newbie it is hard enough to determine where the problem is without
> >package management.  Packages introduce an additional layer of
> >complexity or, for a newbie, shroud of fog.
> 
> Actually they simplify things. Scenario: ghostview doesn't work. Why?
> It's not installed. So install it. Ghostview works. Problem solved.

Any user who expects to run something that is not installed and needs
some sort of package management to figure that out probably should not
be in charge of a computer.

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.

I firmly believe Linux is about promoting computer literacy and to use
computers to their full potential, thus truly empowering people.

Cheers
-- 
Manfred Bartz <mbartz@werple.net.au>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely
foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
                                     -- The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy