The future of Linux - architecture and package inter-dependencies

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 11:13 +0000, Kaimano wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> Just joined this list, I started a topic on fedoraforum.org and I was
> suggested to refer my thoughts on this list as well. Sorry, is LONG.
> 
> Here is a compendium of the messages I posted:
> 
> ONE
> 
> Linux represents a greatly stable platform and the FC team is doing a
> great work in improving the operating system, however I think that we
> should all take a step back and look at what the market and ourselves
> really need.
> 
> What I am looking for, like, I believe 99% of the user base not involved
> with developing the OS, is:
> 
> 1) to install an OS and forget about re-installs for at least two years 

this FC already gives you ;)
> 2)
> to be able to upgrade the applications I most use without having to
> re-install the operating system

that's a hard one, see below
\
> firefox 1.5 is hard to build for FC4 due to the dependencies, not to talk
> about evolution 2.4 openoffice and KDE just to name some. The dependencies
> on a miriad of packages make the effort ridicolously hard.
> 
> The risk is to alienate potential users by forcing them to re-install
> their operating system whenever they/we want to use the latest release of
> an application that we really care about.
> 
> My proposition is to start thinking of a Linux architecture that allows
> the re-build/re-placement of essential packages without having to rebuild
> most of the operating system, thus increasing the life-span and viability
> of a platform installation that need not to be replaced every year.

I think you are missing something here: these "essential packages" *ARE*
most of the operating system. (If you divide FC into "OS" and
"Applications", the essential packages you speak about fall under "OS",
and are the DNA and fabric of what makes it an operating system).


> 
> TWO
> 
> The problem is not updating from one version to the next, the problem is
> actually to keep up with updating the most important, though not system
> vital applications, without updating the core operating system. One guy
> using its own computer can do that accepting some difficulties and risk.

again.. it's the same thing!
"I want changes. But I also don't want changes"


> The core e-Mail application is evolution 2.0. A bug is found on evolution
> which requires upgrading to the latest 2.4. 

Why? You have a support contract with the vendor and you make them fix
the bug in version 2.0.

A bug should never ever be a reason to do an upgrade to half the OS.
Missing features, sure, but bugs... no.