Re: Gnome/Linux Application Installer

[David Jeske <jeske home chat net>]

On Thu, Dec 24, 1998 at 05:19:31PM +0000, Gleef wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, David Jeske wrote:
> > However, this is not supposed to turn into a 'I don't need it because
> > I do XYZ' kind of discussion. The system as a whole should be capable
> > of doing a super-set of the things which are needed in the real
> > world. Windows right now does a better job of app installation than
> > UNIX, do we want to keep it that way? We need to stop hard-coding stuff.
> 
> I think most people will agree that there is room for improvement in how
> Unixes in general, and Linux in particular handles program installation
> and filesystem organization.  I think the Windows model is inferior, but
> that is my opinion, you are welcome to yours.

I think each model has it's advantages and disadvantages. I think that
the only way we are going to be better is to be big enough to admit
the things we're bad at and improve them.

> What you don't seem to be understanding is that while there is room for
> improvement in the Unix world regarding this, GNOME is not the place to do
> this improvement.  It is WAY WAY beyond the scope of GNOME, and is a
> matter for the standards bodies.

I happen to disagree. I don't think the problems UNIX has have
anything to do with package managers or filesystem standards. They
have to do with how applications are developed. Gnome is in a sense a
'new set of APIs' to develop applications. Along those lines, we
should be thinking about app-manegement, and adjust the APIs to help.

For example, the ways that are in use for Gnome and KDE to register
filetypes and icons have many problems. They are more similar to
windows than they are different in that applications 'graft'
themselves into the system much the way windows applications 'graft'
themselves into the registry. 

> If you are serious about this, actually deal with the standards bodies.
> The commercial Unixes follow (to varying degrees), the Unix Trademark
> standards set by the OpenGroup (http://www.opengroup.org).  Most Linux
> distributions have agreed to follow the standards set forth by the LSB
> group (http://www.linuxbase.org).  Since LSB is a work in progress,
> now is the time to present your arguments to them.  I don't know what the
> *BSD groups use for their standards, but if both OpenGroup and LSB
> implement something, they will have some pressure to follow.

I will talk to the above groups about this. However, I still maintain
that this is more within the charter of Gnome than it is within the
charter of a unix standards body. 

The best example of 'UNIX made desktop friendly' to date is Nextstep,
and they demonstrated the success of exactly what I'm proposing. They
left the legacy 'unix' system alone below the desktop, and they
established app-wrapper/encap standards for all 'desktop/gui apps',
much as I'm suggesting we do for Gnome apps.

-- 
David Jeske (N9LCA) + http://www.chat.net/~jeske/ + jeske@chat.net