[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/04/23]
> Is this the ports system, or something else? (The only *BSD I'm even > moderately familiar with is OpenBSD.) If you're referring to ports, than > I consider the ability to install precompiled binaries to be a significant > improvement. That's the other half of the Ports system, it's called Packages. You can build a port to install it or produce a package. You can install the package right away or later. > > Personally, I prefer not having to run installers at all because apps > > don't have to get installed in 10 separate directories at once. > The trick is to have good *un*installers. Personally, I prefer not having to run [un]installeres at all because apps don't have to get installed into 10 different directories at once. > I shouldn't have to worry about where programs put their files. There's two ways of avoiding that. First, you can take over the whole installation process with a single central tool that everyone (and I mean everyone) uses, and then make damn sure that there's people willing to take on the task of maintaining this database. If you install a different program, one that isn't supported, you're back in "configure; make; make install" if you're lucky. If you don't want to track the latest version of some file, same thing. But if you're happy tracking the specific versions and options and plugins that the central command likes, it's great. Second, you create an easy framework that lets developers put all their files in one place for each app, and a user preferences structure that makes collissions impossible, and bob's your uncle. > This is a computer, and computers are > good at keeping track of fiddly stuff like that. That applies to both philosophies. > This is one thing I > think Debian does very well, and much better than any system I've seen on > Windows, at least. Windows applies part of both solutions at the same time, badly.There's stuff above here
Generated at 01:00 on 03 May 2005 by mariachi 0.52