3 ms·
Package management is what you need when you have a huge tree of unstable dependencies that have to be updated in lock-step. Proprietary OS don't have that, wh
by teacup50 12y ago
Package management is what you need when you have a huge tree of unstable dependencies that have to be updated in lock-step.
Proprietary OS don't have that, which is why:
1) They can support stable binary-only commercial software, and
2) They do not need or benefit from Linux-style package management.
BeOS R5 had the stable APIs necessary to achieve a stable OS without Linux style package management. The shift away from that has also involved a shift away from the idea that the OS should ship ABI-stable libraries.
Linux-style package management isn't an appropriate tier-one feature for a modern stable desktop OS.
- wcummings 12y agoEven if users don't need "Linux-style" package management, developers definitely do.
- teacup50 12y agoOnly for "Linux-style" software, and it need not be built into the base system. In fact, it should not -- if having a stable system on which binary software can be shipped is important, a built-in supported Linux-style dependency management system will undermine that goal entirely.
- yebyen 12y agoI don't get "linux-style." It's not linux-style, it's "built-on-free-software" style. The other style is "I paid someone to do it" style. That's not really a style, it's just polar opposites.