Re: Autopackage Vs Zero Install

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Pablo Garralda<[email protected]> wrote=
:
> Hi everybody,
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Reading Auto=
package F.A.Q. I've just found a link to "Zero
> Install" which it seems to have an approach similar to Autopackage. In it=
s
> site, there is a table comparing several options, including Zero install =
and
> Autopackage among others. Of course, According to its page, Zero Install
> rocks. ;)
>
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Does anybody=
 know the advantages of Autopackage over Zero
> Install? Better portability, perhaps? Or its just a different approach?

Different approaches to the same problem basically. Zero install tries
to remove (or reduce) this whole "i need to install an application
before I can use it" mantra that has been around since the operating
system was invented.

Autopackage tries to solve the limitations of centralized software
distribution that exist in the linux world, allowing more of windows
.msi/setup.exe way of installing apps.

That's the fundamental differences IMO.

-Isak

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: autopackage-dev-unsubscribe-OfajU3CKLf1/[email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: autopackage-dev-help-OfajU3CKLf1/[email protected]