What next?

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 6/2/05, Mike Hearn <mike at navi.cx> wrote:
> Word on the street is that it's traditional for operating systems to ship
> with a widget toolkit and lots of other things too. 

So basically what you are saying is... you believe that an operating
system.. like Fedora Core.. should include ONE widget toolkit and then
demand all applications use that ONE widget toolkit? Please... please
go build a linux distro that is toolkit pure. And even if you do,
neither gtk or qt are going to disappear.. you will still have vendors
creating apps in both that your precious software management system
will have to deal with as an addon toolkit.
But hey.. prove me wrong. Build the distro that is qt pure or gtk
pure... and watch how much fun it is to drag in either toolkit in with
every application you install with your cool include the kitchen-sink
application installation process.

> Mac apps usually have
> few (if any) dependencies because they depend on the OS itself. 
As long as we aren't talking about any application that tries to be
cross-platform sure... but then of course you are talking about a
distinctly different pre-condition than what exists for any linux
distributor.

> By saying
> "This app requires MacOS X 10.3 or higher" apps get a massive chunk of
> functionality for free, that would on Linux require about 70 dependencies
> in order to express.

Because the collection of pieces that make up a linux distribution is
far more organic process.  Fedora as a distributor of individual
project components can not dictate overall structure in the same way
that Apple can do with their operating system.  You can't make a linux
distribution be a mockery of what macosx is... simply because of the
way the development is structured.


> > a lack of update notification.  Oh yeah.. thats absolutely wonderful.
> 
> That's why Gaim has an auto-update plugin that will pop up a message when
> there is an update.

i wasnt talking about 'gaim' the application i was talking about a
native macosx application that uses libgaim as a backend and uses
apples gorgeously braindead application installer method. You know..
native macosx toolkit and all that jazz. since gaim itself requires
gtk, a toolkit that apple doesnt provide as part of the OS.. to get
gaim installed you either compile it.. or most likely fink it. And we
aren't talking about applications like that.

> In fact, given that the little Fedora/Red Hat tray thing has *never*
> actually been able to stick in my session for more than about a week, I'm
> not sure why you think Fedora has user-friendly auto update either.
> Remembering to run a magic command every few weeks isn't user friendly.

I didn't say it was friendly. I said it existed.  Evolving  the
process we have now to make it user-friendly doesn't require stripping
out the package management system we have and starting over with mac
osx's concept.  You are of course, free to experiment with doing
that... by building your own rpm-less or dpkg-less linux distro. I'd
absolutely LOVE to see someone, create a toy distro that re-implements
apple's application installer as a proof-of-concept inside the linux
landscape.. sanely dealing with all the fun issues like competing
toolkits that linux distributors have to deal with.

I've already related in this list how in my most unexpert opinion an
in-distro application that mimics the gnome menu structure could be
use as an intuitive way to interact with configured repository
collections as an install and removal tool.

> No, Apples target audience are not UNIX heads using lots of trivially
> "ported" software so nobody in their target audience uses fink. Apps that
> are actually designed and built for the Mac as opposed to simply being
> compilable on it never have to be compiled from the source. Ever.

Right with one quick comment you summarily dismiss any application
that uses gtk or qt as being outside the boundary of discussion,
leaving precious few comparable applications. You need to face
reality. The landscape in which a linux distributor works is vastly
different than the landscape Apple creates.This is exactly what you
get when you compare  Apples to Linuxes.  Apple's development model is
starkly different than what ANY Linux distributor is going to be able
to do....especially a Linux distributor that is attempting to work
with upstream component projects as closely as possible. Top down
design versus diverse/competitive component development.  If a Linux
distributor wants to
fork upstream projects into a mockery of mac osx.. more power to them.
But Fedora isn't that distributor.

-jef