Very Computer

[snip - a call for standardisation]

Quote:> This is a call to the Linux Community of Developers to standardize AT
> LEAST these portions of Linux software.

I completely agree, but I don't think Linux is going the wrong way (yet).

Quote:> 1. Installation of software

As always, tarballs (./configure, make, su -c 'make install') stay (oh yes
they will). Package-like installing (cfr deb, rpm, jbl, ...) goes the
right way: easy, user-friendly and without any hassle. I don't think it's
necessary to evolve to one package. Each type of packaging has it
advantages and disadvantages. It's a choice, a mindgame if you will. Some
people like the deb-packages since they are extremely easy to install.
Some others want rpm, since the availability of those files is enormous.
Some people stay with the tarballs.

I don't think Linux is going the wrong way.

Quote:> 2. Removal of software

With packages without any hassle. With tarballs you should look at the
Makefile before 'make install'-ing and search for 'make uninstall'. If
that's available (and correctly programmed), there isn't any other hassle.

This could be one point of discussion (tarballs - uninstalling software),
but I don't know enough about tarballs (I only use them if I can't find
any rpm-files for it) so I'd better shut up :-/

Quote:> 3. Upgrading of software

Again, with packages no troubles. Tarballs are also without any hassle,
since upgrading is very simpel. Configuration-files stay (thus not the way
M$ handled things, i.e. registry), binaries get upgraded, libraries are
... how do they say it... renewed? I mean, a newer version of library
doesn't overwrite things (f.i. libsmpg-2.0-3.so.2), only has a greater
version-number (f.i. libsmpg-2.1-1.so.2). And ldconfig makes sure programs
use the right library...

Quote:> 4. Maintaining configuration files for installed software

/etc/*.conf, $HOME/.*rc, ... I think Linux (and most unix-like OS'ses) are
doing a great job on that. They are easy to back-up, easy to modify
(manually AND with scripts/tools), ...

--
 SwifT

Happy New Year!

Just one question -- WHY must there only be one stifling standard that
guarantees that people only get to
have *ONE* and *ONE* choice only?

Personally, I like having the choices....perhaps several standards that
can coexist/cooperate with each other is the real key
to letting people have as many choices as they wish. If needed, a
standard that mandates how the standards comply with
each other could be written.

As far as *MINIMAL* standards, do you really want to repeat the Sun/MS
Java wars scenario with Linux standards this time?

Good luck in getting the application writers to adhere to the standards.
Atari and IBM tried this for years
without too much success.

If you were talking about a single platform, then steps 1 to 3 are
easily done. However, if you're dealing with a multiple
platform entity like Linux, then I think you'll find one standard won't
be able to fit all platforms without lots
of contradictions.

Quote:

> 4. Maintaining configuration files for installed software

Linux/Unix is already doing this.....Look in the /etc directory.

Quote:>This is a call to the Linux Community of Developers to standardize AT
>LEAST these portions of Linux software.

Those items cannot really be standardised.  They're not even fully standardised
under Windows.  Items like hardware-interface drivers or admin tools don't
install in the same place or same way as a windowmanager.  A single metaphor
can't encompass all operations.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++