On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 02:10, Wendy Nexcom wrote: > # This is Linux. "not" windows. it will "never" be windows and I > # seriously doubt it will ever do anything "like" windows. Some > > Right, but this OS should bring easy way. > > # any Linux system will Never do the .exe thingy and RPMS are forever. > > No problem if Linux still use RPMS, but should provide easy way to install. > Why put long version number and processor type in the file name? > > I think better put it in the file itself. Example: when execute > \mnt\cdrom\kde\install.exe > the installation program will tell you what version and processor supported.
No. When the installer runs it can overwrite files already in use and break many things. In linux when this is likely to happen you see error messages about dependency problems. In windows it just happens and then some things are mysteriously broken after a new install. Of course at least one linux update facility does the same thing--doesn't check dependencies, but that one you won't find in this distro. Let others break their systems with updates, we have enough troubles with our update programs thar _do_ check dependencies. > > About "dependency problem" while install RPMS, I think this problem should > be not USER problem but the VENDOR problem. The Vendor of the program should > provide 2 kind of file installation: > 1. Complete. You will have no dependency problem because every file already > provide. > 2. RPMS for Expert. You should find the dependency file before run well. > > No, you would end up with unmaintainable packages. If a package has to satisfy its own dependencies, and another package depends on different versions of some of the same files--then the two can never cooperate. Dependencies are a whole lot cleaner technically, because you can say "needs Python 1.5.2 or later" instead of including 6Mb of Python 2.0 code with a 10Kb program and hoping the system doesn't come pre-loaded with Python 2.1. Even if packages could be built standalone like that, this distribution would be on 40 CDs, and every package would have to be overhauled every time a new version of anything came out (about 5 times a day for upwards of 3000 packages in the downloadable edition). It could be done, but only if people were willing to pay for a frightful waste of engineering resources. If you use software manager to install things, you will discover that it recognizes dependencies and calls for the packages from update sites or your install disks. The difficulty arises with foreign packages, and I am working on a program for that, which wil cover rpms, tarballs, source tarballs, debs, and quite a few binaries. It will search for things to satisfy dependencies but die on conflicts, which is necessary. With windows, you can break many other programs with your installshield wizard--most notably when a game installs DirectX 5.1 over the top of directX 7.0 and then your games depending on DirectX 7.0 won't work. Linux is designed so packages can be built using existing facilities, each such facility being small and probably around for a long rime and stable. Not every program has to reinvent the wheel. There are fewer such dependencies in Windows because Windows is smaller and offers fewer choices and many of its dependencies are completely secret and hidden from the eye. They show up in the crashes that people have to deal with, the infamous BSODs. Civileme > > > > ------------=_1008933180-11608-907 > Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? > Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
