Good article highlighting some paradigm differences between Apple and Linux.
Before the flames start
I like the idea of having everything related to a certain app in a folder, like “xmms.app”. Keep it somewhat like a chroot structure, where the xmms.app dir has the usual bin, sbin, share dirs etc, just under that apps name. One big point against this is that it doesn’t matter where the applications files are, because the package manager takes care of them. At the same time, I could see it being very useful in instances where things like shared libraries don’t work out. For example, if I make an app, but I want to use libwhatever because it has a feature I really need, and that feature is not present in the current distribution library, and may not be backward compatible, then it would seem much more organized to keep it directly under the myapp.app directory instead.
And it would still be available to be updated through the package manager for library bug fixes etc. I am not saying I have really thought it out all that much, and am willing to stand behind it, just an interesting idea. Maybe I am saying I like the way PC-BSD does it with PBI.
Related posts:
#1 by Davi d Edmundson on March 31, 2007 - 2:20 pm
Quote
This approach isn’t suitable for all applications, Take the Samba daemon for example, the configuration file shouldn’t go in the application folder. It should reside in /etc without question. Also it doesn’t want to have a shiny application that you have in your Application folder,
Installing a CLI app/daemon in OS X is a nightmare,
To get round the issue of libraries, could the developer/package maintainer not statically link them into the binary?
By all means take inspiration from an alternative method of the installation problem. But I think it can only be described as different, not superior, nor worse.
#2 by Josef Assad on March 31, 2007 - 2:35 pm
Quote
Maybe you should be using gobolinux and not ubuntu.
#3 by Alex Jones on March 31, 2007 - 3:46 pm
Quote
Some people like to mount different parts of applications on different file systems. Good luck creating 300 different file systems for all of your fancy, de-unified /ProgramFiles/MyApp/var folders!
UNIX POWER.
Also the concept of one package = one application is just ridiculous. Packages are the building blocks of your OS, and may or may not contain any “applications” at all.
Users who can’t get their head around this should not be poking around the file system. It’s all about knowing your own depth.
Oh, and finally, we already have support for this kind of thing: /opt.
#4 by Dave Taylor on March 31, 2007 - 4:22 pm
Quote
I personally like the idea of application folders, I like things that are simple and don’t break. I think the main problem standing in the way of something like this is firstly a decent implementation but mostly people like those above this comment. It’s hard to imagine people stuck with traditions in such a fast moving field but that’s what seems to have happened.
#5 by admin on March 31, 2007 - 4:50 pm
Quote
“Users who can’t get their head around this should not be poking around the file system. It’s all about knowing your own depth.”
I have no issues navigating our current file system, but what I do have is an open mind to changes. My own depth is not the issue, but your inability to intelligently comment on the issue may be.
#6 by Killerkiwi on March 31, 2007 - 5:47 pm
Quote
Sounds like what klik is trying to do, Note they only target user apps so services like samba would note qualify http://klik.atekon.de/
#7 by Erik on March 31, 2007 - 6:01 pm
Quote
I like this idea, mostly because of the chroot part of it. If we implemented the idea of an .app folder, actually chrooted it when the app was running, but symlinked in shared libraries and configuration files, then that would be on to something. The package manager would automatically keep libraries and configuration files that were needed by only one app with it in its directory, but as soon as another app needed the same files, they would be moved to a common directory and symlinked to their respective programs. In this way, if someone actually “took over” any app at all, they would only get access to that specific app’s files and nothing else.
#8 by Henrik Pauli on March 31, 2007 - 7:12 pm
Quote
htop’s author is maintaining a linux distribution that’s about just that
You should look into it.
#9 by eik on March 31, 2007 - 7:42 pm
Quote
There were 5-10 points on the article. The comments seem to focus on splitting hair over one (most likely the least important one). Way to go.
#10 by djouallah mimoune on April 1, 2007 - 3:49 pm
Quote
thanks really for this article, did you ever think about people who have not permanet web access, just to laugh or perhaps to cry yesterday i wanted to download gnome planner and guess what after searching for all those weird packages i decided after that to download the software under windows because it just work and i am sure that no fu….. dependency problem will pop up
so thanks for really for your courage to say that installing software in linux is just a cra…
friendly
ps: shi… the net connexion here for 1 hour in a cybercafe is the equivalent of 1 dollar