3 ms·

I understand your concern for "dependency hell", but to be frank, your arguments come off uninformed to me. Thus all common Linux package managers are them

I understand your concern for "dependency hell", but to be frank, your arguments come off uninformed to me. Thus all common Linux package managers are themselves broken by design. I can't really see how you'd debate your way out of that. If you mean package management is inherently broken because different software may depend on different versions of libraries then that sounds like an issue you'd have with the software developer. I know that in itself could be a gripe with Linux software, but show me one regular computer user who has ever experienced broken package dependencies. The vast, VAST majority of regular Ubuntu user software is installed through the Software Center and the only times I've ever gotten broken dependencies were when I was specifically trying to install an older version of something. I do not use anything Apple but if I recall correctly OS X uses self-contained .app bundles i.e. the apps usually include all their dependencies except those present on a particular OS X version by default. OSX has .dmg files for installing applications. Debian's .deb packages are the exact same thing. Bundling all dependencies can be done in Linux the same way -- again the app developer can statically link to libraries. The fact of the matter is that Linux is NOT a usability nightmare and it's dishonest to say that. Experiencing some arcane error with an old version of Ubuntu on a six year old computer doesn't afford anyone the right to claim that the modern linux OS is a usability nightmare.

sbuk 13y ago
I'd be careful accusing people of being uninformed and dishonest, especially when you make errors in your own post. .dmg files are disk images. In the case you are discussing the disk image contains an .app package that is copied to the users (or more generally, the systems) Applications folder. A closer equivalent of the .deb file would be the .pkg file, which works in a similar manner as you describe. As to whether 'Linux' is a usability nightmare or not I'd argue is purely subjective. It is disingenuous to suggest that there isn't a steeper learning curve, however slight and for whatever reason it exists.
- mikegioia 13y ago
  We're talking about dishonesty in saying that "Linux is a usability nightmare" from an article about improving Windows' usability. I'm not talking about learning curve here! He cited 2 examples regarding Linux's usability that I don't think are relevant at all.
  - sbuk 13y ago
    >The fact of the matter is that Linux is NOT a usability nightmare and it's dishonest to say that. This is not a fact at all. It's a matter of opinion. The author of TFA is equally wrong in asserting that it is in the way that he did, but dishonest? No more than the dishonesty of claiming that it factually isn't.

sbuk 13y ago

I'd be careful accusing people of being uninformed and dishonest, especially when you make errors in your own post. .dmg files are disk images. In the case you are discussing the disk image contains an .app package that is copied to the users (or more generally, the systems) Applications folder. A closer equivalent of the .deb file would be the .pkg file, which works in a similar manner as you describe. As to whether 'Linux' is a usability nightmare or not I'd argue is purely subjective. It is disingenuous to suggest that there isn't a steeper learning curve, however slight and for whatever reason it exists.

mikegioia 13y ago
We're talking about dishonesty in saying that "Linux is a usability nightmare" from an article about improving Windows' usability. I'm not talking about learning curve here! He cited 2 examples regarding Linux's usability that I don't think are relevant at all.
- sbuk 13y ago
  >The fact of the matter is that Linux is NOT a usability nightmare and it's dishonest to say that. This is not a fact at all. It's a matter of opinion. The author of TFA is equally wrong in asserting that it is in the way that he did, but dishonest? No more than the dishonesty of claiming that it factually isn't.