[gobolinux-users] Idea for Gobolinux binary distribution

[kenneth marken]

Rayne Van-Dunem wrote:
> I remember that, besides the file system heirarchy, one of the biggest
> debates concerning the majority of Linux distributions revolves around
> the installation of non-reposited third party (and distro-agnostic)
> application packages. Of course, you already have several projects
> which are committed to a metapackage solution, but the verbal sludge
> slung between Autopackage and the major distros (including the Ubuntu
> Forums, if I can recall directly) is old news.
> 

isnt the biggest issue here the collection of libs alongside the app, vs 
having libs as seperate packages? ok, so autopackage can handle both 
things. but in the end you either have to design a distro around 
autopackage or you have to keep two seperate databases of installed apps 
in sync.

but then i have never realy payed much attention to the whole 
autopackage thing.

> However, I just wanted to put out to the mailing list an idea that
> I've been having for quite a while concerning binary compilation and
> distribution. Dunno if the devs would try this out, but here goes:
> 
> Mac OS X (to which Gobo has been likened in some aspects) is known,
> among other things, for its binary format (.dmg). However, I've
> realized, by reading and re-reading the Wikipedia article, that ".dmg"
> isn't actually a binary format, but more like an application
> equivalent or akin to a virtual "LiveCD". The actual application's
> binary form "Blank.app" is inside of the .dmg (or "disk image"); the
> .dmg, when downloaded, is "mounted" as a virtual disk drive inside
> Finder, and serves the primary task of transporting the inside binary
> from point A to point B.
> 
> My suggestion is this: can a system that does the same thing be
> developed for GoboLinux?
> 

sure, and i belive it have been talked about before, both here on the 
list and on the forum. in either case i think the consensus is that you 
end up with a union mount or similar thats just as "ugly" as the 
/system/links solution ;)

all in all, the effort just isnt worth it at this stage.

> Here's what I'm thinking: A user can download Firefox.livecd from the
> Gobolinux site or a third-party Gobolinux mirror by clicking on the
> link and downloading it from the web browser. Then an application like
> Manager will pop-up and show you the virtual LiveCD that you've just
> downloaded with all the files that came along inside it. However, you
> can have the choice of running the application in the virtual LiveCD
> without installing it by virtually-mounting the LiveCD. Then Manager
> will run the virtual LiveCD's recipes so that it will run just like a
> LiveCD (or LiveUSB, which I'd definately prefer) for as long as you
> have the LiveCD in Manager. Once you tire of it, you can just drag the
> LiveCD out of Manager and Trash it (or whatever else you many want to
> do with it). You can copy it, send it flying through the Internet's
> tubes to fellow Gobo-using friends (pending if they can clean up the
> clogs first :-P ), post it to your site, *anything*, and they'll be
> able to run the .livecd file with similar ease.
> 
> Just an idea. Plus, major inspiration for it came from
> Portable-Apps.org and the growing number of USB-portable apps for
> Windows and Mac (as well as the number of bootable LiveUSBs with Linux
> distributions; but what about portable USB apps for a Linux
> distribution?).
> 

ill take a fully bootable livecd or liveusb distro over just the apps 
any day. this because then you can use any computer without the need for 
a compatible os ;) in effect you have your fav os in your pocket, 
complete with a desktop if you combo a livecd with a usb stick that you 
store the home folder on.

the problem with the software repository style of most linux or bsd 
distros out there isnt that its hard to use. what it is a alien way of 
thinking compared to what windows and mac users are used to. rather then 
going to download.com, snapfiles or tucows, they have a allready 
prepared list of software sitting on their desktop. and with that comes 
added security.

remember, with closed source software like what you get from third party 
suppliers you not only have to trust your os supplier, but the software 
site and the programmers of whatever software your downloading.

with a software repository run by the distro, you can trust that any 
software you get from there. this added on top of the general benefits 
of open source.

this as long as we are talking allready compiled software atleast as 
someone working for the distro will most of the time have had to compile it.

gobolinux recipies are in a gray area as they pull the source from the 
original programmers distrobution site. so by compiling from recipie 
your betting that noone have stuffed anything into the source between 
the time of the recipies creations and the current compile.

but back to the original point. that windows and mac are supplied by 
downloadable third party software do not say that this is the best way 
of doing things. and people that have problems with the linux and bsd 
ways of supplying programs most of the time are veteran users of windows 
or mac. and old habbits die hard.

thats allso why running desktop usability studies can be troublesome. 
you get more errors from a windows veteran in front of a mac for the 
first time or vice versa then you do with someone thats a relative 
newbie at both. this is because over time you learn habbits and ways of 
thinking that may not apply to the new desktop. and when people error, 
they are more likely to complain about the computer then themselfs. this 
even tho the computer is just a dumb machine that does a series of 
instructions over and over just like they are given.

but then i put this on the shoulders of jobs and gates as they keep 
saying that the computer is for everyone, and is as simple as turning on 
the tv. sorry, but the computer is one of the most complex devices that 
the human race have so far created.

in many ways, the holy grale of a computer interface will be one that is 
learning and interactive. more like a secretary then a machine. one that 
over time learns the users habbits and quirks and adapts. one where you 
dont talk about software or files but just ask the "secretary" to do a 
task and the task becomes done.

but the one big difference between a real human and a computer is that a 
real human can review the task given and question its correctness. a 
computer may simulate doing this via dialogs or similar, but in reality 
is more the original programmer trying to outguess what tasks the user 
will want to try to do, and what will then be harmfull to the system and 
the user files.

we all know the old story about people sorting the file types into 
diffrent folders i hope. ie, binarys in one, libs in another and so on.

the fix i see is a database overload. the filesystem as one big database 
where the folders are just preset searches. on top of that you stack 
databases for librarys and similar, and a "smart install" that can forgo 
installing more then one copy of the same library file and similar so 
that updates goes quick.

in many ways, the gobo way with its versioned programs and lib folder, 
its /system/links and similar is this without the databases.

the only way i can see helping the windows and mac old hats in an 
enviroment like this is to introduce "collection" binary packages. 
packages that basicly wrap up multiple other binary packages into one. 
and that will check to see if any of those packages are installed before 
installing its own. that way you can have a single package for the whole 
program and libs, but retain the "ease" of upgrade that you have with 
shared libs.

ugh, looks like i got into a bit of a rant. i see problems and benifits 
from both software install systems (the classical third party inatall 
files, and the software repository like most linux distros use). and i 
dont think changing the gobo software install system will help much as 
its more a culture issue then a software issue right now.