Re: Independant (or free) updater ?


> > My idea is decentralization.


>  Don't even bother me until you get it working ... then we will
> discuss about decentralization ... of course if you stick to
> tar.gz you don't keep track of dependancies, sure the tool have
> far less problem to solve. But then you're back to Windows way of
> managing systems and I'm certainly not interested in this.

I certainly agree with this statement. Besides, I see no problems come from 
centralization of the information about releases. None at all. With some 
server redundancy I wouldn't even fear a downtime of the central system,
you know DoS-attacks hit good systems just like bad ones.

What i like about the database used, is that it is open to other code as 
well. Like GnoRpm and findrpm both can use it and if I decide I don't like 
their ways, I can do my ways into it.

What I do see a problem in, is the diversity of distributions needs. Sure, I 
won't want to live in a all-SuSE world where all systems are setup just the 
same. Different priorities will always lead to different configurations and 
the Linux is a free system, free to be configured just the way you like.

I would wish though, that the standards efforts would be far enough to make 
sure that no application needs different RPMs for different distributions. 
Like there was a layer on top of Redhat, SuSE, etc. where scripts could be 
pluged in and they layer would forward it to the places where they are called 
in a distro normally.

But I dream, embedded Linux, desktop Linux and mainframe Linux, how can I 
dare think of the conflicting interests lead to a unified installation 
process in the century?

Yours, Karl

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]