On 02-Apr-01 Miroslav Skoric opined:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Team
>>
>> uninstall packages without any problems. I am tired of trying to
>> install
>> packages and asking me for these dependency all the time. I just wipe
>
> IMO, authors of packages are responsible for what their packages
> require
> when a person tries to install something. But I don't know what is the
> problem under Linux, because under Windows I only got a problem (even
> not always) if I try to install a stuff for 9x under NT or something
> similar. But if softwere is for 9x it always work without dependency
> problem. Any solution?
Imagine you have several companies making a product called Windoze (this
is far-fetched, I know, because it would require a word that the current
tyranny can't even pronounce: competition). Imagine that these companies
had slightly different visions. One wanted extreme stability, to the
point of being possibly a few version behind anyone else. Another wanted
cutting-edge and would make major upgrades and new releases often. Others
wanted various stages in between. Some would even want to offer different
software packaged with their releases that would require different types
of support.
Also envision that the people who wrote much of the support didn't work
for any of the companies. They did their work because they liked it, or
it was related to what they do. But, they mostly didn't do anyt of the
work for the vendors themselves directly.
Mr cutting edge would need to also have cutting edge support libraries
and files to go with his distribution because cutting-edge would be
written against cutting-edge libraries. This situation would apply
somewaht to the vendor wanting entirely different software packaged in the
distribution. That would mean that the libraries and support software
that the others use wouldn't support some of the software this maker
wanted to release.
Mr ultra-secure would be totally hesitant to update anything until fully
tested for the possibilities of exploits and other possible security
vulnerabilities.
Mr super-stable wouldn't change anything as long as what his vision of
stability could still be met in the world of libraries. This would mostly
depend on the people that maintain the support software and libraries.
Once his stuff could no longer be packaged the same way because the
support people changed all of their stuff, he'd change. Not a second
before that.
All of the middle people would have varying degrees of the above. Some
would want a little more secure than the others, some a little more
stable, some newer than most would tend toward.
Each of the companies is allowed to modify any parts of the software they
release written by others (with certain restrictions) and package it with
their products. In some instances they do it because they can. In others
they can make their product work better by doing it than it would without
modification.
Basically, what I just outlined is Linux. In this world you have a lot of
choices. Those choices are possibly going to cause some pain. You can
stick completely with software that is only released by the vendor and be
absolutely sure that upgrades will work (barring an error from time to
time). Or you can take it upon yorself to install things offered by
others right over the top. The second choice puts the onus upon you to
make sure you have everything needed to make the installation work.
Now, this will be easier to imagine. In this scenario you have one
company that makes all of its own support software, makes all of its own
interfaces, packages it all in one package completely of its own design
and completely prohibits anyone else from modifying their product in any
way. If they find that someone gets around their draconian restrictions
and makes something that actually works with their product better than
they themselves did, they just steal the idea and, if necessary, crush
the original writer/owner of the product. In their world, this is called
innovation.
In this instance, product makers have no choice. Since others can't modify
the original source created by the original creator, they have to conform
to the releaser's design or the product will fail. Also, since it is and
can be only modified by the originator, you have to wait until they
decide to acknowledge that something is broken, get around to coming up
with a fix, then releasing it. They (in the real world) have a monopoly
on the product and can take their sweet time in doing anything. The first
response is usually denial. Then a minimization of the harm created by
the bug. That is followed by the promise to do something about it.
Sometimes they actually make an attempt to fix the bug. Sometimes they
put out a new release and make everybody upgrade to get rid of the
problem that was in the last release.
This is basically what you have with Micr$oft. It's easy to install and
generally comes with the files it needs for everything to install
smoothly. That's because it's all owned by one entity and they dictate
the terms for anyone else that wants to work with their product.
Micro$oft is easy to install but boring. It won't be upgraded very often
with fixes for problems becasue that affects their bottom line, plus
the admission that the problem even exists is construed by them as
admitting they aren't perfect.
Linux can get to be a little hard sometimes. But, you have control
and the choices of what direction to go. You want plain-vanilla? Just
stay with software released by the original packager and you won't have
problems with old versions of libraries or needing a different library
than was originally installed. You want other stuff beside what was there
in the beginning? Get busy and get all of support items as well because
you'll need them. Want to modify a program or library? Go for it. In most
instances all the original writer wants from you is notification and an
explanation and/or patch they can consider adding to their product (they
still own it) in a later release.
So, if you want to avoid the problems with installing software, your
choices are to stay with Redhat/Debian/Slackware/SuSE/Mandrake or
whomever you first install and forget other programs, or you can use
'Doze and forget about seeing things fixed if you run into problems with
the original software.
I take that back: you can do something about problems with 'Doze. You can
call them, credit card in hand, and get plenty of unhelpful answers and
accusations against hardware and software vendors. You can also (via
credit card) be told to delete some important files originally installed
by winDoze that are guaranteed to make this work no longer and result in a
reinstall of everything (seen this twice now).
I choose real innovation, not the M$ definition.
---
Sometimes you have to stride boldly up to life,
look it straight in the eye, and say "huh?"
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
