Re: Ubuntu Software Center future
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim Heckman wrote on 28/09/14 23:32: > > On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:11 AM, David Raphaël > wrote: >> >> However, I am a bit concerned about package management and I >> think that Ubuntu should develop (or improve) its own package >> management system in order for the distribution to be more >> administrators friendly. > > I'm sorry, but you can't cite an improvement in the GUI as being > more administrator friendly. As an administrator of a sizeable > Ubuntu fleet, dpkg/apt does everything I need it to. It's quick, > it's reliable, and I've never had it break my system unless I had > already done something stupid... Tried and tested with minimal > magic. Right. If you're an administrator who does need a graphical interface (for installation profiles and repositories, for example), try Landscape. > There are plenty of people I know who administer Ubuntu systems are > actually turned-off by the desktop-centric vision. So be careful. > > I'm basing my assertion that Ubuntu is desktop-centric based on > previous decisions that shipped. On any given day, the front page of Ubuntu's Web site is more likely to highlight server/cloud features (Juju, Openstack, Landscape) than desktop ones. > ... > > If it's not broke, don't fix it. > > I think they are more than welcome to add a UI around either > dpkg/apt, but they should not develop their own package management > system. To put it bluntly, it would be a stupid decision. > > ... In 1999, dpkg/apt was amazing. By today's standards, it is broken. Maintainer scripts can do anything, which means there is no reliable undo function, no sandboxing, no user-only installation, and the package system can be corrupted merely by disconnecting the power during an update. When an error does occur, apt returns only localized error messages, effectively preventing any higher-level tool from presenting tailored troubleshooting options. The entire apt package list is stored on the client, which makes checking for updates slow, and wouldn't scale to hundreds of thousands of apps. And every package in the world is required to have a unique name, which doesn't scale even to tens of thousands of apps. - -- mpt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlQqfAMACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecpNcwCfYACJf4RHTKvZACRu4t3S33w+ j4gAoJD5NGMnd1HtwbgcfiGq5R5w0wZ5 =xaGD -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu Software Center future
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 4:11 AM, David Raphaël wrote: > However, I am a bit concerned about package management and I think that > Ubuntu should develop (or improve) its own package management system in > order for the distribution to be more administrators friendly. I'm sorry, but you can't cite an improvement in the GUI as being more administrator friendly. As an administrator of a sizeable Ubuntu fleet, dpkg/apt does everything I need it to. It's quick, it's reliable, and I've never had it break my system unless I had already done something stupid... Tried and tested with minimal magic. There are plenty of people I know who administer Ubuntu systems are actually turned-off by the desktop-centric vision. So be careful. I'm basing my assertion that Ubuntu is desktop-centric based on previous decisions that shipped. With that said, please for the love of everything if this happens make sure it's backed by dpkg/apt. While I appreciate your feedback, I've some concerns about fragmentation if Ubuntu goes its own route with a package manager even if it is 'compatible' with .deb packages. > What do you think? If it's not broke, don't fix it. I think they are more than welcome to add a UI around either dpkg/apt, but they should not develop their own package management system. To put it bluntly, it would be a stupid decision. > Cheers, > Raphaël This is a good discussion to have. :) Cheers! -Tim -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu Software Center future
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:39:26AM -0700, I.E.G. wrote: > I don't often respond . Personally I ignore the entire GUI update package. I use dselect or apt-get at command line, and if issues arrive I use dpkg --force-whatever's to fix them. The command line is far faster and more powerful for many tasks. The only time GUI works well is if the task is unvarying and just a matter of selecting options. For example, if you need to move a few files around, drag and drop are fine; but if you have to move hundreds or thousands and they are not just a simple selectable block, then you are far better off processing them with RE's and a command line while loop than spending hours doing click, drag, drop, click, drag, drop clickn, dragn, dropn... Perhaps granny can't do that. But then she probably doesn't even know what files are. She needs a different interface than I do, and that is the facts of life. Her interface is going to be useless to me. So if Unity is for Granny, then set up a Granny option for the download and install, and set up a UnixUser option for people who actually use computers. I have had little trouble reconfiguring things to my wishes except at dist update boundaries... the updates tend to be an awesomely awful experiences that do so much damage that it is sometimes weeks if not months before everything is back to the way I need for my day to day work. So long as configuration files are ASCII and in /etc; so long as vt0 - vtn are a Ctl-Alt-Fn keystroke away; so long as I can switch to the Mint Gnome Fork GUI; so long as I can fill my desk top with launchers to automatically connect me to a shell on one of many remote machines, I am relatively at peace. Granny and Computer Professionals are different beasts and ne'r the twain shall meet. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: Ubuntu Software Center future
I don't often respond . Unity was and is a total abortion . If I wanted a tablet or glass-phone OS I'd own a tablet or glass-phone. Unity just sucks . What sucks more is that it is force fed . Having to install something you despise to get something you want is in no way a pleasant experience .I hear that that has changed but I wouldn't know , I've moved on . *I do understand that installing "server-headless" followed by the display manager and desktop of your choice has always been an option but , why? Why can't I have my pudding if I don't want my meat* ? *Generalization leads to unintentional obfuscation . Specifications are there for a reason . Hiding or eliminating functions of an operating system for the end user's "own good" is a short steep slope to oblivion . * Which leads me to the second point . What is wrong with "Synaptic" ? Anything? Anyone ? Thank You . What is wrong with the Ubuntu Software Center ? I'll start with slow , clunky , riddled with errors and permissions issues just to name a very few . Again I understand it's has come a long way in the last few releases but I wouldn't know I've moved on . It used to be that learning International Morse code was a right of passage to the amateur radio community . That is quickly falling by the way side as more liberal voices want the code abolished as an anachronistic relic of a past century . It used to be that rolling your own kernel was a right of passage in and for Linux . That is quickly falling by the way side as more liberal voices want the command line abolished as an anachronistic relic of a past century . The result in the amateur radio community was such a watering down of the user pool that development nearly ceased due to the proliferation of appliance users that could barely tune a fish let alone a radio . Being all things to all people , infinite diversity in infinite combinations , may be fine for a fictional universe but is a poor business model . However , a solid base , a mufti-configurable operating system with an option list that goes on for days works just fine for me . Trouble is that's just me . There are enterprise users that want and need a drop in and just work headless server . There are tablets and phones(ugh , Yeah I'm opinionated but usually fair . Phones need to be phones , tablets need to be lap/notebooks and when it finally gets as far as wearable "tabiphones" on the wrist ' I'll keep my archaic opinions and hardware . I just hope I'm dead when the "bio-embed" option becomes "normal" ) so some allowance needs to be made . There are casual home users that need a desktop to take care of everyday tasks Then the power user that just needs a desktop as access to their toolbox that can be the whole of the Deb/Ubnt/Third party repos available . I'll let you guess which one I am from this output of my "home desktop"... OS: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64/x86_64 - Distro: Debian 7.6 - CPU: 4 x Intel Xeon (3000.000 MHz) - Processes: 163 - Uptime: 1d 2h - Users: 2 - Load Average: 0.66 - Memory Usage: 2127.26MB/28207.35MB (7.54%) - Disk Usage: 623.04GB/2783.91GB (22.38%) So give the tech toy weenies what they want for their glass phones and craplets Give the ID10Ts the next edition of M$ and let them deal with an offshore help desk . Give the enterprise folk the same , robust , easy to install platform independent ,operating system that has been available since 8.04 Give me a meat and potatoes install that has no trace of the abortifact "Unity" with a reasonable choice of display manager and desktop For gawd's sake leave Synaptic alone , for the most part it works with out fault . apt , if I have to explain you don't use Linux I say three sections Weenies , They can do wtf ever they want , I really don't care .Just leave my codebase and kernel alone Synaptic , hey the cli isn't for everyone and I occasionally use synaptic to browse rather than apt cache search. Apt , smaller , faster and mostly all I need or want . @David Raphael ... I am in no way a typical user but I have a feeling that I am not that alone in the community . Trouble is getting folk like me to speak out is like pulling teeth . Unfortunately I and others like me posses "uncommon sense" . First it was having to employ a non Pulse Audio plan for nearly three years while an incomplete and broken beyond repair PA was forced on those of us that can and do effectively employ legacy hardware . Then it was the total abortifact "unity" . The one thing each of these had in common was removal of either one of these heavily integrated (infections?) effectively destroyed the install . Now it's been bluetooth for several months . Workarounds popped up on the web immediately because of a strong and dedicated tech following . I guess what I'm saying here is that if a user like me has to point out the folly then canonical is in some warm , smelly and deep . I am in my own right a power user but only in areas of personal interest . What little competency I have withi
Ubuntu Software Center future
Hi everyone! With the recent development of Unity8, I have noticed that the Ubuntu Software Center is becoming an App Store equivalent, which I think is fine. For me, the Ubuntu Software Center should focus on applications and not on packages. However, I am a bit concerned about package management and I think that Ubuntu should develop (or improve) its own package management system in order for the distribution to be more administrators friendly. I know there already exist synaptic or aptitude, but those are not included by default in the distribution and I read somewhere that Canonical wanted only one tool by default. What about having two main sections in the Ubuntu Software Center: one for the applications (related to apps.ubuntu.com with icons, screenshots as well as users comments for each entry) and one for the packages (related to packages.ubuntu.com with a simple but powerful presentation like synaptic)? I do not really know what are the actual plans of Canonical but I really think splitting the business part (applications) from the traditional open source part (packages) would remove any ambiguity and be profitable for everyone. The actual Ubuntu Software Center is trying to be in the middle of those two approaches, which results in a messy software (in my opinion). What do you think? Cheers, Raphaël -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
