|
Bob Morales posted:http://www.linuxatemyram.com/ You can also tune vm.swappiness to a smaller value (like 20) so it will wait longer (meaning total higher memory usage) before it actually begins to swap. I think this is a better option than dropping the cache because the disk cache can really help performance a lot.
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
Xenomorph posted:So you're saying that displaying "context=unconfined_u:unconfined_r:unconfined_t:s0-s0:c0.c1023" behind their UID/GID information is the intended (correct) behavior? It's what my SELinux-enabled RHEL boxes all display when I use id. So I'd say yes.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Well, OK then. SELinux will remain on. Windows 95, OS/2, Irix64 (Silicon Graphics), and Sun Solaris systems are more common where I work than anything that runs SELinux, so I find myself checking Google for every little thing it does.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:Well, OK then. SELinux will remain on. What industry is still using all 3 of those? Maybe OS/2 for banking (though we dropped it recently) and Win95 for ancient 16-bit stuff in factory settings, but IRIX?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
I touch more IRIX systems on a weekly basis than I should. Academia all the way, brother  100% of these are cases where some prof wrote an app in 1996 when everyone here had an Indigo2 and nobody's taken the time to just compile it on a $100 throwaway linux box. On the bright side they're all slowly dying. Thank god for 1990s hard drive technology being what it is
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Yeah, university setting. The Win9x systems are almost all gone. The DOS and Win16 stuff they do runs just fine under XP. However, one Win9x system may be required because of good ol' VXD drivers for some old piece of equipment that came from some company that died off in 1995. That is the same reason we still have a Mac OS 9 box going. When a department spends $100,000 on some moon-laser, many times they don't want to buy another one just to have something compatible with Windows XP/7/whatever. The OS/2 system is still running (24/7 for 20+ years or something) because "it just works" (why replace it?). I'm not looking forward to the day it dies and we need to some how recover whatever it's doing. Something I'm fighting with now: changing Windows AD user passwords from Linux systems. On Ubuntu: code:code:None of Ubuntu's or Windows' logs show any errors.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
evol262 posted:IRIX? The US Air Force still uses it in some space ground systems.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:
Is the connection to the LDAP server (AD in your case) encrypted or not? If not, password changes may not be allowed. You generally have to be going over LDAPS or LDAP+TLS for that to work.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
xdice posted:Is the connection to the LDAP server (AD in your case) encrypted or not? If not, password changes may not be allowed. You generally have to be going over LDAPS or LDAP+TLS for that to work. LDAP is used for user info, but Kerberos for authentication. Does Windows work with LDAPS or LDAP+TLS?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
Xenomorph posted:still have a Mac OS 9 box going. I feel your pain. We have a mission-critical OS9 machine here. It runs an important but ancient program that is powerpc only and can't run in rosetta or classic mode and has all sorts of other inane licensing restrictions. When it dies we're going to be in trouble. I could probably get it running on another powerpc mac (which will be sitting for outrageous prices on ebay for the next 20 years) but I don't think the company that wrote the program even still exists. And our entire production process grinds to a halt without it. Fun!
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
lazer_chicken posted:I feel your pain. We have a mission-critical OS9 machine here. It runs an important but ancient program that is powerpc only and can't run in rosetta or classic mode and has all sorts of other inane licensing restrictions. When it dies we're going to be in trouble. I could probably get it running on another powerpc mac (which will be sitting for outrageous prices on ebay for the next 20 years) but I don't think the company that wrote the program even still exists. And our entire production process grinds to a halt without it. Fun! G4 Tower in the rack here. Running Filemaker but I think nobody uses it anymore and uses Filemaker (from Windows clients) on a Mac Mini (we've upgraded that version like 3 times so far)
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 15:29
|
|
|
lazer_chicken posted:I feel your pain. We have a mission-critical OS9 machine here. It runs an important but ancient program that is powerpc only and can't run in rosetta or classic mode and has all sorts of other inane licensing restrictions. When it dies we're going to be in trouble. I could probably get it running on another powerpc mac (which will be sitting for outrageous prices on ebay for the next 20 years) but I don't think the company that wrote the program even still exists. And our entire production process grinds to a halt without it. Fun! You don't need another physical mac to migrate it to, just run it in SheepShaver. Assuming the license doesn't prevent that.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 15:49
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:G4 Tower in the rack here. Running Filemaker but I think nobody uses it anymore and uses Filemaker (from Windows clients) on a Mac Mini (we've upgraded that version like 3 times so far) Ah good old filemaker. We have some really old versions of that installed on our xp machines but I don't think anyone here even knows how to use it. Must be a relic of an era long passed. Ours is a G4 tower too.  Also, how have I never heard of sheepsaver? That looks like it could possibly work. Got to check the license...
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 15:58
|
|
|
So, I gave Ubuntu a shot the other day, figuring if Linux is ever going to be ready for prime time, Ubuntu would be leading the way. I wanted to see what sort of experience a new user would have trying gaming in Linux with Valve confirming the imminent release of their client and their source engine games for Linux. So the first thing I saw was that Ubuntu had a sort of quasi install under windows (yes I know it still has to start up Windows to start up Ubuntu) and thought that was an EXCELLENT step in the right direction for allowing users to gain experience in Linux painlessly and starting with only the most basic knowledge of how to use Windows. The newest version of Ubuntu looked real slick, certainly better than Windows 8 does. And has something VERY similar to the Widows 7 task bar that I love; the search was very robust, snappy, and accurate. I only tested the install with one computer but I had no hardware issues to speak of and all the drivers that came built in worked just fine. Overall I was pretty impressed with the whole experience and would *almost* give Linux the green light for any user, provided the software support is there. The only real OS related issue I encountered was the terminal. Now, I know some people LOVE the terminal and will swear by it, but I disagree. I'm of the opinion that until we get to the point where a linux user can use a GUI for everything but the most high-end work and trouble shooting you'll never see widespread adoption. Now I personally have no issues actually using the terminal. I know how to use it and it's not a barrier to me except for having to remember all those commands, but for most users just staring at a big text box with no inkling of what you need to do is a terrible way to require them to install any application. So, I wanted to do something fairly simple. Move the task bar from the left side of the screen to the bottom. I realize the folks making Ubuntu have this vision where the bar has to be on the left, but I figured, "hey this is linux, people can make it do whatever they want." So I found a tweak that would enable it, but for some bizarre reason, the creator requires you add his repo to your system's list of repos via the terminal, then to a Sudo apt-get, update everything via terminal yet again, then finally install the drat thing via terminal. Let's just suppose for the moment that he has a really good reason for wanting his application to be the most up to date when the user downloads it, why is it that he couldn't just package that as a script for any user to download from his site which will take care, in the background, of all the repo adding, downloading, updating, and installing? I had to do this several more times for fairly basic tweaks as well. This wasn't a unique thing. How close are we to having distros and applications that don't require the use of the terminal at all?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
The only reason you had to use the terminal was that you were trying to do something Ubuntu didn't want you to do. This is a common criticism of Ubuntu right now, and I personally agree with it, but for most users who aren't going to go crazy with that sort of thing, they can install anything they want from the ubuntu software center. There's probably also so way of adding new sources to the software center gui if you really care, but it's way easier just to copy and paste a few lines into the terminal. I had my mom (who's in her 60s and terrified of computers) using loving MANDRAKE years and years ago and even back then she never had to open up a terminal window even once. Think of it this way, if you want to do some crazy tweak that Windows is trying to prevent you from doing, you'd probably have to go in and edit the registry. What's scarier, registry edits or a command line?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:So, I wanted to do something fairly simple. Move the task bar from the left side of the screen to the bottom. I realize the folks making Ubuntu have this vision where the bar has to be on the left, but I figured, "hey this is linux, people can make it do whatever they want." So I found a tweak that would enable it, but for some bizarre reason, the creator requires you add his repo to your system's list of repos via the terminal, then to a Sudo apt-get, update everything via terminal yet again, then finally install the drat thing via terminal. Let's just suppose for the moment that he has a really good reason for wanting his application to be the most up to date when the user downloads it, why is it that he couldn't just package that as a script for any user to download from his site which will take care, in the background, of all the repo adding, downloading, updating, and installing? It's just part of what you were doing. And you could have probably found a script online that would have done it and just required you to enter your password. And it's retarded that they won't let you tweak some stuff by default. Even Mac OS has less restrictions on the dock.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:The only reason you had to use the terminal was that you were trying to do something Ubuntu didn't want you to do. This is a common criticism of Ubuntu right now, and I personally agree with it, but for most users who aren't going to go crazy with that sort of thing, they can install anything they want from the ubuntu software center. Yeah, this is basically it. The point of Ubuntu isn't really to tweak it how you please, but to use the apps that are made available and maintained by Canonical along with the configurations provided by Canonical to ensure you have a stable, supported system. There is little question of how to solve a problem you come across, since most of the Ubuntu community's installed applications should be nearly perfectly identical. This is no different from Red Hat or Windows or Mac OS X: they all can be tweaked, but it is rarely supported. This is one of, if not the biggest reason developers are finally willing to bring games to Linux. Linux was always such a hard platform to target since there are hundreds if not thousands of distributions, each maintaining their own set of libraries and configurations and apps. A game developer might be able to get it working on a few distros, but the amount of work it would take to support all of them would be overwhleming, not to mention very hack-y. Now that Ubuntu is hugey popular it has become a ton easier. Valve, when porting their games over, not only know exactly what libraries will be installed by default on every Ubuntu system, but also the exact video drivers that will be installed. Now they can deploy it to every Ubuntu user, knowing it will 'just work', with the exception of those who do heavy tweaking. Granted, this leaves the other distros out in the cold, but those users are able to pop open a command line and add whatever they need to make the game work. tl;dr: Don't do too much messing around with Ubuntu because Mark Shuttleworth doesn't want you too. In a way, he has a good reason to do this. Unity still blows though.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:35
|
|
|
On the other hand, I finally removed that stupid stupid scroll thingy and went back to normal scroll bars and hate Unity far less now.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
But this still doesn't explain WHY it is software developers for Linux don't simply package their applications at simple scripts that do all the work that one would otherwise have to do with the terminal. I mean, install scripts are TRIVIAL for a developer to make. They are, at most, 5 lines of code and require a trivial amount of bandwidth to host, but improve the usability of their application by 10 fold for the vast majority of users. The problem, as I see it, isn't really with Ubuntu not building in all the tweaks, its endemic in the software developers who either refuse or simply are completely unaware of the extremely simple, and basic steps that they can take to vastly improve the usability of their code. Basically, what I'm saying is that there is zero reason you should ever have to open up the terminal to install something. If you're personally making low level system changes I can see the need for that, and a user will almost never encounter those sorts of situations unless they are adept at the terminal anyway. But if you just want to install a program that lets you easily move a taskbar around, at no point should you ever have to open the terminal.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Basically, what I'm saying is that there is zero reason you should ever have to open up the terminal to install something. Use packaged software. If you want to compile software yourself, you'll have to learn how to operate your computer.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:But this still doesn't explain WHY it is software developers for Linux don't simply package their applications at simple scripts that do all the work that one would otherwise have to do with the terminal. I mean, install scripts are TRIVIAL for a developer to make. They are, at most, 5 lines of code and require a trivial amount of bandwidth to host, but improve the usability of their application by 10 fold for the vast majority of users. This is almost entirely the 'fault' of the GPL
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean, install scripts are TRIVIAL for a developer to make. They are, at most, 5 lines of code
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
covener posted:Use packaged software. If you want to compile software yourself, you'll have to learn how to operate your computer. Look, it's TRIVIAL to create a script that has all the dependencies for a program you want to compile included in the sudo apt-get. It's one line, that's it. Then you need one more line to update everything and make sure it's current. And finally you need one line to install the stuff. At it's most basic level, that's ALL you need to install something in Linux. That can be entirely automated with install scripts and since it's probably at most 200 ASCII characters of data, is a TRIVIAL script to host for anyone. But what something like that does is make your program suddenly accessible to 99% of the Linux userbase as opposed to only those who understand and aren't intimidated by the terminal. You will never need to start up the command line in Windows or the terminal in MacOS to install something, unless you're dealing rather complex stuff that only a handfull of people will ever do.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 16:59
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:But this still doesn't explain WHY it is software developers for Linux don't simply package their applications at simple scripts that do all the work that one would otherwise have to do with the terminal. I mean, install scripts are TRIVIAL for a developer to make. They are, at most, 5 lines of code and require a trivial amount of bandwidth to host, but improve the usability of their application by 10 fold for the vast majority of users. Actually, most software used to be distributed as source and makefiles that you just extracted and ran, much like an installer. The reason why you have to open up the terminal is because you're using a command-line interface to your package management software. By adding it to your sources, this allows you to run "apt-get upgrade" at any point in the future and get the latest version of the app. It seems strange to many people because it's worlds ahead of the state of software distribution in most other operating systems. When you use the Ubuntu software manager and the update manager, you're using a graphical front-end to these commands, but your command line interaction was the same basic tool. It's not the fault of the developers of the software you installed that you had to do that, but rather the efforts of the distribution maintainer to avoid "cluttering" or "overcomplicating" their OS.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Look, it's TRIVIAL to create a script that has all the dependencies for a program you want to compile included in the sudo apt-get. It's one line, that's it. Then you need one more line to update everything and make sure it's current. And finally you need one line to install the stuff. At it's most basic level, that's ALL you need to install something in Linux. That can be entirely automated with install scripts and since it's probably at most 200 ASCII characters of data, is a TRIVIAL script to host for anyone. This is a thing they already do. It just breaks if you are A) Not on Ubuntu or B) playing around with the dependencies yourself for some reason. It;s not like Valve is going to give you a list of commands to punch in when you install L4D. It;s going to be in the Software Center or LinuxSteam and will certainly launch a pre-install script, just like every non-free app in the Software Center right now. edit: Also they make you type in commands and add PPAs separately is because none of the stuff in the PPAs are officially supported or even checked by Ubuntu staff before it is added, so everything is the PPAs is considered "unsafe", kinda like the AUR, so they want to make sure you are certain you want to install it.. In fact I remember a couple months back seeing a correspondence between a bunch of people and a maintainer of an ebook reader that had some local root exploit or something in it, and the author of the reader flat out refused to fix it, and there wasn't much people could do. text editor fucked around with this message at 17:08 on May 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:Actually, most software used to be distributed as source and makefiles that you just extracted and ran, much like an installer. The reason why you have to open up the terminal is because you're using a command-line interface to your package management software. I recognize the value in a repository system. There's a reason why newer OS, especially in the mobile space, use it almost exclusively for the end user. It lets them keep things up to date easily, quickly and making searching for applications much easier. However, if you're at the point where you're typing in new repos into your terminal, or typing out the exact name of it for the sudo apt-get, you've kinda thrown out half of the benefits of the repo system. It's not easily searchable when you're dealing with a command line interface, at least for most users. If you're typing in an apt-get, it's probably because you found the name of the program elsewhere through a google search, and are trying to find the repo it's actually in, and then finally grabbing it. Instead, you simply package the program as an install script, just like any install.exe you'd fine in Windows. This way it avoids the use of the terminal at all and makes the program far more accessible to end users.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
^ First off: downloaded Secondly, if the dev puts their poo poo into the default debian/ubuntu repos, there's no need to add anything else. Canonical has created a really great way for devs to distribute or sell their software that doesn't require adding repos. Check out this link for more info. Nitrousoxide posted:Look, it's TRIVIAL to create a script that has all the dependencies for a program you want to compile included in the sudo apt-get. It's one line, that's it. Then you need one more line to update everything and make sure it's current. And finally you need one line to install the stuff. At it's most basic level, that's ALL you need to install something in Linux. That can be entirely automated with install scripts and since it's probably at most 200 ASCII characters of data, is a TRIVIAL script to host for anyone. You know what's even easier for users than making an install script? Putting that poo poo in the loving Software Center where it belongs. Then all I have to do is open the loving program, type the first 5 letters of the program's name, click "install", put in my password, and wait. It's loving easier than installing poo poo on windows. quote:
angrytech fucked around with this message at 17:13 on May 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I recognize the value in a repository system. There's a reason why newer OS, especially in the mobile space, use it almost exclusively for the end user. It lets them keep things up to date easily, quickly and making searching for applications much easier. I kinda answered this above but in case you missed my edit, and to clarify a bit, those extra repositories and not official or maintained by Ubuntu, and are considered to be untrusted. They make you go through that process to help verify you really want to make that change to the system and also because the Ubuntu team has no way of knowing which of those repos you want added. edit: Ubuntu is intended to be a walled garden like OS X, you had to go through that trouble because they don't want you making those changes since it can disturb the well-tested environment they set up for you and possibly break compatibilities. Of course, it's still Linux so it's not like they are going to stop you from doing what you want with your system, but Ubuntu is intended to be the "no commandline" Linux you want, the trade off being you can't modify as much stuff. text editor fucked around with this message at 17:16 on May 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:11
|
|
|
angrytech posted:You know what's even easier for users than making an install script? Putting that poo poo in the loving Software Center where it belongs. Then all I have to do is open the loving program, type the first 5 letters of the program's name, click "install", put in my password, and wait. That would be even better. Basically, any way that avoids the use of the terminal and uses a GUI to install programs works. It's just that when you're insisting on using non-standard repos that don't appear in the software center, you SHOULD post an install script. There is exactly 0 reason for ever entering the terminal to type "sudo apt-get"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
text editor posted:I kinda answered this above but in case you missed my edit, and to clarify a bit, those extra repositories and not official or maintained by Ubuntu, and are considered to be untrusted. They make you go through that process to help verify you really want to make that change to the system and also because the Ubuntu team has no way of knowing which of those repos you want added. Install scripts would still require the user to enter their password if it requires a SUDO apt-get which is a big flag that you should be sure of what you're getting. Simply putting in the text box that pops up detailing what will be downloaded when you put in your password and where it's from should be sufficient.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:That would be even better. Basically, any way that avoids the use of the terminal and uses a GUI to install programs works. It's just that when you're insisting on using non-standard repos that don't appear in the software center, you SHOULD post an install script. There is exactly 0 reason for ever entering the terminal to type "sudo apt-get" Yeah this isn't Ubuntu's fault though, it's the individual developers not including scripts to add the ppa and update or whatever. if you want next time, the website for the PPA should have the .deb packages you can download, which are installed by the Gyu Gdebi
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:That would be even better. Basically, any way that avoids the use of the terminal and uses a GUI to install programs works. It's just that when you're insisting on using non-standard repos that don't appear in the software center, you SHOULD post an install script. There is exactly 0 reason for ever entering the terminal to type "sudo apt-get" Reread what Text Editor is saying about the reason that it's not braindead easy to add repos; it's no easier to run a script, it's just as difficult just in a different way that you are comfortable with. Are you arguing about this from an end-user or power-user perspective? End-users shouldn't be executing downloaded scripts or adding PPAs, and power-users should be able to do both easily with a little help from a search engine. The benefits of PPAs to power users are that there's a standard way to install a PPA, whereas a script could do any number of dangerous things while it's installing that a cursory readthrough wouldn't necessarily catch. The reason to use PPAs instead of scripts is that it's harder to gently caress up your system. angrytech fucked around with this message at 17:23 on May 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
To reiterate what text editor said, the reason why you had to go to the command line to do that is because if you're not comfortable enough to use a command line then you really shouldn't have been doing what you're doing because you'll probably break your computer. You have two options: use the OS as its maintainers intended, or start getting into advanced operations to tweak it to your liking.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Install scripts would still require the user to enter their password if it requires a SUDO apt-get which is a big flag that you should be sure of what you're getting. Simply putting in the text box that pops up detailing what will be downloaded when you put in your password and where it's from should be sufficient. I believe this behavior is/was supported by gnome-keyring. They are all going to require sudo though, the only reason you don't have to do this on Windows is usually because most people only make user+administrator accounts. This is considered bad security policy, and Ubuntu decides to go the route of "not letting you do this by default" SlightlyMadman posted:You have two options: use the OS as its maintainers intended, or start getting into advanced operations to tweak it to your liking. This. Ubuntu is targeted at a very specific demographic, either you are in it or you are not. This is why many of us dislike it too, but it's not like all of these choices aren't made for a decent reason. text editor fucked around with this message at 17:26 on May 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Nitrous: I'd like to apologize as possibly coming across as rude. I'm really not angry at you or anything, but I'm at work dealing with sharepoint, and that's never fun.  In any case, I should know better than to jump in unless I'm going to be polite and positive. Sorry dude. VVV That's a good point, and it's what developer.ubuntu.com is trying to accomplish. angrytech fucked around with this message at 17:37 on May 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
angrytech posted:Reread what Text Editor is saying about the reason that it's not braindead easy to add repos; it's no easier to run a script, it's just as difficult just in a different way that you are comfortable with. PPAs are fine too since they're just binaries. Basically anything you can do that avoids the use of the terminal is a HUGE step up for end-users. The main reason I was suggesting the scripts is that creating an install script is utterly trivial. It takes a minute of time and improves usability for the end user and, for those that care to look, are easy to examine to make sure they are valid with any text editor. The problem is, though, as long as developers use nonstandard repos, or just post the source and expect end users to build it for anything except for applications intended for high-level users, it's going to impede growth and acceptance of Linux. Developers need to loose this idea that anyone can use the terminal. I see this all the time on Linux sites, with rabid fanboys of the Terminal telling people they need to learn to use it because it's so much better, faster, or whatever, and completely missing the point of end-user usability.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:PPAs are fine too since they're just binaries. Basically anything you can do that avoids the use of the terminal is a HUGE step up for end-users. The main reason I was suggesting the scripts is that creating an install script is utterly trivial. It takes a minute of time and improves usability for the end user and, for those that care to look, are easy to examine to make sure they are valid with any text editor. This isn't the developers fault though. The Ubuntu Team has full control over everything in the main repos - if developers want their application included in Ubuntu, they have to send a request of some sort to the Ubuntu team, the team has to review it, audit the application, and make sure it gets assigned to a Maintainer who can grab updated version of the application from the original developer and check it for compatibility before adding the updated version to the repos. Hopefully ShadowHawk will come in and explain this a bit further later - I believe he is part of Ubuntu's WINE team, he actually doesn't work for the official wine project iirc but he occasionally submits patches to them, and also makes sure their new versions work with Ubuntu before they get added to Ubuntu.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:... rabid fanboys of the Terminal telling people they need to learn to use it because it's so much better, faster, or whatever, and completely missing the point of end-user usability. Nobody in this thread is saying this. We're giving clearly explained reasons for why you had to go to the command line that are not simply "the developers were too lazy to write five lines of code." In any case, if you want to learn what OSS development is all about, then you've found an opportunity. If you see a package that you feel would be improved with an installer, feel free to write your own and distribute it. If enough other people agree with you and use it themselves, then you could bring about a positive change in the community. Just don't sit around bitching about it on the internet, because that never accomplishes anything.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
SlightlyMadman posted:Nobody in this thread is saying this. We're giving clearly explained reasons for why you had to go to the command line that are not simply "the developers were too lazy to write five lines of code." In any case, if you want to learn what OSS development is all about, then you've found an opportunity. If you see a package that you feel would be improved with an installer, feel free to write your own and distribute it. If enough other people agree with you and use it themselves, then you could bring about a positive change in the community. I don't think he was bitching so much as not knowing that non-Canonical developers aren't allowed to just add whatever they want to Ubuntu, and that there was a whole multi-tiered/political thing behind the scenes. I think he just thought they were using PPAs because they are too lazy to set themselves up in Software Center, something they aren't able to do anyways
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:05 |
|
|
angrytech posted:^ First off: downloaded Also, for out-of-distro distribution, packages are a joke. Say you have a game, and want it to be available for both 32-bit and 64-bit x86 Linux distros. You'll need a 32-bit deb, 64-bit deb (you can't put both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries in a single deb, Ubuntu will refuse to install it), 32-bit rpm, 64-bit rpm, and a tarball too for everyone running Arch, Gentoo, and whatever else (but that won't install menu icons). Or you could just make a Mojo installer that works on everything and be done with it (barring the issue of missing 32-bit runtime on 64-bit for the installer, but that can be worked around). An installer can also do user-local installs that doesn't require su/sudo, unlike packages. I mean, if you've bought any Humble Bundles, you've seen the big ugly mess that is the Linux downloads page. Contrast with the Windows and Mac pages. It's not user friendly at all. angrytech posted:Secondly, if the dev puts their poo poo into the default debian/ubuntu repos, there's no need to add anything else. Canonical has created a really great way for devs to distribute or sell their software that doesn't require adding repos. Check out this link for more info. mjau fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 18:09
|
|