[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2005/04/23]
> > Dependencies are bad. Tools to resolve dependencies are only good when the > > dependencies are necessary. Tools to MANAGE dependencies and let you see > > what they are so you can avoid them when you don't need them are rare. Hell, > > it's often hard to even SEE what the dependencies are, particularly in open > > source software. > Dependencies might be bad but ya know what's worse? Everybody reinventing > the wheel 20 times over and each getting it wrong in subtly different ways > AND hard coding their bug into the software. Yep, that's why you need a tool a MANAGE dependencies, not just HIDE them. > All its implementation hate aside, its the only language that's usefully > solved the problem of automatic dependency installation and upgrade at the > language level! I'm waiting for that to seem like a good idea. > Anyhow, that's Perl-specific hates. We're talking about Apple. We're talking about hate. > If the new version sucks then reinstall the old version. How do you do that through the package system? > What's worse? Manually checking and upgrading 100 pieces of software every > week/month? Or doing it automatically and having to rollback one > application every once in a while? Or maybe you just let everything get > dusty. Keep in mind this is a desktop machine, not a server. I let everything get dusty. I upgrade stuff when I need to. It's amazing how much I don't need to. > And if you don't like the new version is fucked, what's the alternative? > Use the old version forever? If necessary. > Do you still use Netscape 4? No, but I'm sure glad that I didn't have to deal with 150 users automatically upgraded to Netscape 6, and instead I could test it and then when Netscape 7 was ready I could roll it out THEN. > You can't avoid upgrading forever. Why not? I know people who are still using Mac OS 7, 8, and 9. And the software that runs on their computers is pretty dusty. But it still does what they need. > This is hateful but it is less hateful > than dealing with having to work with and write for ancient versions of > software. And that attitude is why I don't want to let someone else tell me when to upgrade. Particularly in an environment where some of the dependencies are commercial and upgrading costs money. Particularly when (say) it's a lot easier to support Netscape 4 in a degraded but acceptable fashion than to support the latest IE with CSS pages. And "ancient versions" of MOST software doesn't even produce ANY work for developers because it's not programmable or is only programmed by the end-users. Like, say, most Mac software. > I paid $1500 for this machine and operating system and (if I actually paid > for upgrades) $140 for each OS upgrade. I shouldn't have to pay another > $40/year for a basic packaging system. Yeh, I get like that about commercial stuff I think should be in the OS. Like, say, an accelerated X server for a popular video card. But it costs money to develop drivers, so if you want it you have to pay for it. You know what? It costs money to track dependencies. This guy is doing it for $40 per year. Debian does it for free, but Debian's got a lot of resources he doesn't. Maybe Apple should have come up with a few more hooks for this, but they did at least provide enough to make it possible if not as easy as you want... and there's an awful lot of other missing APIs I'd like them to take care of first.There's stuff above here
Generated at 02:00 on 03 May 2005 by mariachi 0.52