On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 10:38 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. > > You should get a clue in stead of just fantasizing up assumptions based > on ignorance.
I've worked with a number of operating systems, a number of dependency management systems, and a number of absences of such systems. I stand by my earlier statements in this thread, and I think I have a fairly good clue about what does and doesn't work in terms of installers. There is one way to avoid most of the duplication and still make every application perfectly self-contained. You simply decree that there are no dependencies permitted except for the base OS itself and what it provides. As long as that's a rich enough set of tools, everything can work (that's what seems to be happening on mobile platforms, for instance). But it does mean that any unusual dependencies have to be considered part of the app, and that means duplication. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
