On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Wolfgang Keller <felip...@gmx.net> wrote: >> Thankfully, all actually user-friendly operating systems (MacOS, >> TOS, RiscOS, probably AmigaOS, MacOS X) spare(d) their users the >> bottomless cesspit of "package management" and/or "installers". >> >> Because on such operating systems, each and every application is an >> entirely self-contained package that doesn't need any "packages" or >> "installers" to use it. > > You mean everyone has to reinvent the proverbial wheel AND worry about > dependency collisions? Yeah, that's a heavenly thought.
Actually, that's not right. RiscOS had and OS X has (I'm sure the others do as well) a concept that is similar to a shared library. But the joy of an application bundle is that installing an application does not scatter its own files all over the file-system, putting configuration files here, binary resources there, library files somewhere else, executable files somewhere else again. The result on one of these other systems is that uninstalling an application is a simple matter of deleting the relevant bundle, which contains all of the resources necessary for that application. All that remains are whatever files exist within user directories. I've worked with both. Quite honestly, I really wish that other operating systems had gone down this route. MS didn't possibly to make it harder to steal software, and Unix...well, *nix has the concept of the "distribution" that will manage all of this for you. We all know the problems that this causes. N. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list