Grand New Unified Universal Component and Package Manager ?

[Windozer]

[ This is a tad long ...]

Tom, yes this is part of what I was thinking about - availablity and ease of use.

Some distributions heavily patch kernels. - Bigpaws

So I'd imagine that the further into the system you go, the more difficult it would be to have a generic packager.

Why not just compile from source [...]?

Yes, I too am thinking along the lines Tom said immediately above. Something like vpackager - or a "maker's make" as many scripts are, would make the build easier, because a developer familar with another platform, or even another distro won't necessarily know where all the *stuff* is.

I'm beginning to appreciate the way Gentoo does it, using XML.

@Epic: XML could easily reflect altered, non-standard directories, files, parms, etc. It would be cake to imitate the file system paths using XML, in fact, the XML tags indentation could look exactly like the directory structure. This way, it wouldn't matter a hoot where something was - as long as the XML doc reflected it exactly.

It seems reasonable that we users should expect one package manager for all the distro's. - Windoze

Those types of demands will be met with alot of flaming and resistance. -Bigpaws

Oh, sorry, B.P., I didn't mean to make this sound like a demand, rather more like "what if the world could be more perfect?" 
(Aside to Epic: I can't almost hear your knuckles cracking as you go for a reply to that one
 ^^^    )

And especially not to sound like demands from an unified group, such as Linux Users Local Union #222

In the distributions that you have tried have you looked at a kernel config? - B.P.

Yes, I have reviewed at least 10 0r 12 distros and eval'ed some configs. Did a few builds from source too. As configs are so diverse and complicated, usually just went with defaults as recommend, tweeking little. Took whatever drivers were found (with the udev thingy?), manually loaded a couple of d.drivers. Also wrote my own, simple character device driver from sample code - and it worked! Whaahooo.  But UUUUGGGG - configuring is the stuff that got me wondering about a unified way to do all this.

... Applications available are you refering to packaged applications or applications?

Not sure I'm following you there, Bigpaws.  Do you mean kernel-level packages, versus user apps, like say OpenOffice?

I applaud your question. IMHO is that you are missing several things.

Thanks. Yes, I knew there would be - indeed, I was hoping for your input.

Lets' think about it this way. You (general term representing those you have stated want this) are demanding changes so that you do can do what you want irregardless of the problems. You are demanding a unified (since this is what it would take) group to bow to your wishes. That is not the best approach at least in the way I see it.

Actually, Bigpaws, you might be misreading me, but that's probably my fault because this thread started out open ended.
(Aside to uelsk8s: very cool link - think I'll print that whole thing out and read it! <g> Might not make a bad sticky thread in the forum help/faq section.)

Let me see if I can properly address your thought above. The main intention of a unified packager would be to make things easier and smoother, not to avoid problems. On the contrary, if the entire linux user base had the same "PackMan" wouldn't there be more people finding and fixing a problem? And if the problem is beyond my skill set, I sure hope they fix it - and make the repair easy. This is the kind of stuff that scares off people from using Linux, IMO.  Also - and certainly this has been discussed a lot on the net - many people don't want or need to know what's going on under the hood. If our assistant needs "office" to write docs, that thing should slam dunk into the system, so he or she can start working on a doc, not on figuring out how the installer works.

Another example before I jump off my hobby horse... I'm setting up a small PBX using land lines mixed with VoIP.  A friend has recently done the same for his office. He suggested "trixbox,"  a version of Asterix http://www.asterisk.org/, running on some flavor of Linux. Aside from installing, setting up a few IP addresses, and a tad of tweaking, it runs out of the box, so to say. I can spend my time troubleshooting the telephone stuff, instead of hacking strange *nix parameters.

Please understand that I love hacking and learning about Linux - but only for fun, not when I'm being responsible to someone else.

[...] you should have prepared a good question and where your problem lies.

I couldn't agree with you more...

If you do not wish to learn and just want to have it answered expect to pay for it, another type of choice.

Here, I take you to me the generic "you" as mentioned above... again I couldn't agree more.

Although it is, as you pointed out, OK to ask for help. Obviously, the better formed and focused the question is, the more specific the help will be. Flaming a newbee because they didn't know the right question is lame. Flaming them because they were clearly lazy is another matter.

Start looking at the root directories at least glance at them. Look at some philosophy about Linux in some older literature. This may bring to a path of enlightenment.

Indeed. Dig!

Go XML?


cheers, and thanks,
Howard in Florida
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[bigpaws]

Let me see if I can properly address your thought above. The main intention of a unified packager would be to make things easier and smoother, not to avoid problems. On the contrary, if the entire linux user base had the same "PackMan" wouldn't there be more people finding and fixing a problem?

Probably not, that reduces the freedom in Linux and may drive the older group to another OS. It is not
that what you are proposing is not fully possible. Mostly due to install locations. Imagine writing an install script that is looking for a file to test from, but the file exists in another location. The script would fail. Yes you can write a script to grep by distribution but that adds even more complexity.

This is the kind of stuff that scares off people from using Linux, IMO.  Also - and certainly this has been discussed a lot on the net - many people don't want or need to know what's going on under the hood. If our assistant needs "office" to write docs, that thing should slam dunk into the system, so he or she can start working on a doc, not on figuring out how the installer works.

One that not needing to know what is going on is why Windows is the way it is. The average user gets a new machine to run more malware since the problem is an old computer not malware. That is a bad thought process and a very good reason that the spam situation is what it is. Alot of ppl will use a car analogy, but the rest of not knowing how a car operates are the consequences for operating a car. 

The assistant you refer to. I would guess that you are using an office environment. It is the job of the
administrator to install these things not the assistant's job. The Unix philosophy is to seperate the system from the user. These are very specific roles. Anything outside of the users directory is a job for an administrator.

You mention XML what is that advantage of XML vs standard writing? Why should I be required as an administrator to do all the tagging instead of just creating standard variables? That question is not to ponder. Why XML before anything else?

I can spend my time troubleshooting the telephone stuff, instead of hacking strange *nix parameters.

Am I to understand that if you do not understand it then it should be changed?

Please understand that I love hacking and learning about Linux - but only for fun, not when I'm being responsible to someone else.

Then would I guess that since you do not understand Linux that anyone using it would be irresponsible?

I could continue with this, I did but felt that it would go towards a flame and unproductive. I have tried to answer your question to the best of my ability. In my years I have found it productive to question the way of things after understanding the history and principles of something. Without taking the time to do that would not create a productive conversation.

When I came to Unix and Linux environment I was lost. If it wasn't done the MS way it had to be wrong. After taking the time to learn the history and philosophy I changed my mind in that why did
MS change the way things were done. The light that I had was when I stopped looking at things as
if it should be Windows. I learned to use look at each OS independantly without prejudice. This allows me to look at and solve the problems irregardless of OS. So the end user gets what works for them not  what fits for me.

Unix has a very long history. Through changes that could not have been anticipated, yet it still thrives. There was a definite plan in design and use. MS shunned the old school principles and now look at what they are trying to do with XP, and Vista.

Bigpaws