RE: Kind request: fix your packages

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le sam 04/10/2003 à 16:37, Otto Haliburton a écrit :
>  O
>  > So what's the problem.  The developer wants his product used.  If you
>  > don't fix your software/hardware/programs the user will rebel and not
>  > update it at all, then where's your problem.  The user instinct is not
>  > to make changes cause "it works for what I want it to do",  It may not
>  > be the best or have all the functions I want but if I got to go trouble
>  > shoot all the problems then f__ it!!!!!!
>  > 
>  > 
>  Sorry about the back to back post.  The above statement is exactly what
>  Microsoft has found out on it constant updates to fix its system.  The
>  user will not make the change cause "it will break something else".  So
>  they are not keeping there system up with what MS calls critical
>  updates.  Think about it!!!!! 
Oh, but I think about it.
I can assure you each time I get a new swen virus in my mailbox I think
bloody hard about it.

Read my post. Sleep on it. Then read it again.

Somehow you seem to assume dependencies are the worst thing that can
happen to a user. I've given you a mailfull of real examples of people
that thought the same thing, and ended up screwing the user big time
because their solution was at best 80% of the cost of using a
full-featured system package manager, and they conveniently forgot that
0.8*100 >> 1.

We're no longer talking about single-user single-application dedicated
systems. Any single user nowadays will interact with multiple apps, and
if apps integration is broken because they each use their own library
set he will be immensely pissed of.

And this is only when you purposefully ignore the upgrade problems.
Updates are a fact of life. Live with it. You need to upgrade because
there are nasty people that will attack every single hole in your apps.
You need to upgrade because your hardware will change and this means the
software handlers must keep up with it. And, last and least of all you
need to upgrade because you want the app enhancements like everyone
else.

I can only ROTFL when you attack dependencies then write a few posts
later about the user refusing updates because MS taught it they
constantly break new things.

I'll give you another hint. Once. MS happens to sell a system with no
dependencies checks. It's also a system that can not get updates right.

RPM and deb use dependencies. rpm and dep system have been seamlessly
updated by users for years.

The truth is that the user is not hopelessly dumb as people seem so fond
of writing. The user is L.A.Z.Y. The user will happily use whatever tech
that helps him get rid of the broken application-centric update
processes the MS and proprietary world have forced upon him for the last
years. It is false to think he'll reject every new approach (for him).
It is false to write he needs standalone apps because he's used to them
(conveniently forgetting this standalone approach is what got us in the
current mess, and that computer systems managed to replace VCRs as the
most hated piece of tech in our everyday life). Integrated solutions
like unified print systems, directx, etc have been a huge success.
Modern package managers are nothing more that an integrated upgrade
system. That mainstream operating systems don't use them yet is no
reason to reject them. Quite the contrary since those very same systems
have failed miserably to solve the update problem.

The average user will try apt/yum/up2date and find it saves him hours of
update procedure time he can pass doing more interesting stuff. The
average user like you wrote wouldn't care less if its package manager
used dependencies, cold fusion or fuzzy logic. The average user cares
that its works without sucking his precious time. This is the single
success criterion.

Today Linux modular package installations pass this test hands-on. When
I read someone advocating doing it the windows or mac standalone way I
read someone that wants to save himself some packaging work at the
expense of the end-user. The fun things is it's always advocated to
spare the user the dreadful rpm experience.

rpm is not dreadful. With apt/yum/up2date/urpmi it's a lifesaver.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot