[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/05/21]
On May 21, 2006, at 6:19 AM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 11:43:22PM -0500, Peter da Silva wrote: >> As for OSX packaging... it's not a "package system" like the BSD ports >> system, but then neither is RPM, and neither were Debian packages for >> many years. I have been told Debian packages have gotten to the point >> where you can just install a package and have it automatically pull in >> everything it needs, but that sure wasn't the case back when I was >> actively looking at switching to Linux in the '90s, > > Apt was released with Debian 2.1 in 1999. Back when everyone was going on about how I'd like it so much more than FreeBSD because it had more drivers and everyone knew it was the most BSD-like Linux, and then boggling that I actually wanted a package *management* tool, and then pointing me at two more things that weren't actually package management tools, it really didn't matter what was going to happen in 1999. And they really did think I was asking a bit much, expecting the system to figure out what I needed. >> and it sure as hell >> wasn't the case for Red Hat last June. > Red Hat has had Up2date (for corporate use) and Yum and even Apt-get > for > a few years now. Certainly since last June. All of them will let you > pull down a package and all of its dependencies. Yep, and you get your choice of a bunch of different collections, but god help you if you get a package that's not set up for the repository you're working with. You're back in the old style groveling around a bunch of repositories looking for the one that's got the bits you need. > Frankly, the packaging systems for the main Linux distributions are > more > powerful and sophisticated than those of the various decendants of > 386BSD. This isn't so relevant for FreeBSD or OpenBSD, since they are > more integrated and centrally managed than any Linux distribution. And OSX is more centrally managed than FreeBSD. > Different story with OSX, though, where the multiplicity of official > packaging systems (so not counting fink) makes for a real mess IMO. > I'm > used to being able to track the ownership and purpose of any file > outside /home or /var. In OSX you know the ownership and purpose of any file because that information is built into the file system. You don't have to look it up, it's right there in the name and owner and type. If you insist on treating it as a kind of inconvenient subset of Linux you're going to lose out. > Those who do care can run Debian on their powerbooks. Why, for god's sake? Apple's laptops are horrid, and even if you bought one and you're stuck with it, you can probably trade it even up for something like a thinkpad that's actually designed for use rather than looks.There's stuff above here
Generated at 14:00 on 27 May 2006 by mariachi 0.52