Re: Autopackage Vs Zero Install
Rykel™ <[email protected]> Wed, 5 Aug 2009 03:42:58 +0800
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.autopackage.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--0016364582b423546404705619b5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not sure abt Zero Install, but one reason Autopackage rocks because Autopackage allows a user to install software As User, not (necessarily) Root User. Keep it up guys!! :) Best Regards, Rykel=E2=84=A2 http://bit.ly/howtoinum 2009/7/31 Matthew Tedder <[email protected]> > > Hmm.. I need to read up on Zero Install to understand that, I think.. > > What I like about Autopackage is that it's the closest thing toward > effectively forming a united GNU/Linux software platform. Having to hope= my > current version of my particular distribution's package repository has th= e > particular version of the app I want is just a very bad... highly annoyin= g > thing for me. And I think it is the #1 inhibiting factor of broader > adoption of GNU/Linux as a personal OS: first, there'd be more software f= or > everybody--both FOSS and proprietary apps; second, life would be much eas= ier > for the average user for not only having access to more software but for > being able to use it, too; and third, stores could be more willing to sel= l > GNU/Linux based hardware not having to worry about software availability = or > support problems resulting from the lack of the same. > > What I think autopackage is missing for this vision to come true are the > following (understanding not everyone agrees with me on multiple points): > > (1) Building a central repository is a good idea, given certain > conditions. This would help build up critical mass, increasing the > exposure, popularity, and marketability of autopackage's goals. > a. If the software maintainer is unwilling to maintain his/her/its' own > autopackage then it's a good thing to try and find a surrogate maintainer > until that person can be convinced to do it his/her/its' self. > b. A surrogate maintained autopackage might act as a handy starting > point for the proper maintainer to take over from or at least learn from = in > order to make a proper one. > c. A central repository could provide a helpful infrastructure for > project maintainers to maintain a project within and also for users to se= ek > out and compare application packages. > > (2) My own view about most open source software applications is that they > are seldom (if ever) complete products. I think it's a fine idea for > someone else to build a solution based off of a typical existing open sou= rce > applications.. e.g. Open Office with books, video tutorials, and a on-lin= e > support account, etc. > > > > Matthew > > > On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Isak Savo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Pablo Garralda<[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Hi everybody, >> > Reading Autopackage F.A.Q. I've just found a link to "Zero >> > Install" which it seems to have an approach similar to Autopackage. In >> its >> > site, there is a table comparing several options, including Zero insta= ll >> and >> > Autopackage among others. Of course, According to its page, Zero Insta= ll >> > rocks. ;) >> > >> > 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] >> >> > --0016364582b423546404705619b5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am not sure abt Zero Install, but one reason Autopackage rocks because Au= topackage allows a user to install software As User, not (necessarily) Root= User.<div><br></div><div>Keep it up guys!! =C2=A0 :)</div><div><br></div><= div> <br></div><div><br clear=3D"all">Best Regards,<br><br><br>Rykel=E2=84=A2<br= ><a href=3D"http://bit.ly/howtoinum">http://bit.ly/howtoinum</a><br><br><br= > <br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">2009/7/31 Matthew Tedder <span dir=3D"lt= r"><<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a>></= span><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde= r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> <br>Hmm..=C2=A0 I need to read up on Zero Install to understand that, I thi= nk..<br><br>What I like about Autopackage is that it's the closest thin= g toward effectively forming a united GNU/Linux software platform.=C2=A0 Ha= ving to hope my current version of my particular distribution's package= repository has the particular version of the app I want is just a very bad= ... highly annoying thing for me.=C2=A0 And I think it is the #1 inhibiting= factor of broader adoption of GNU/Linux as a personal OS: first, there'= ;d be more software for everybody--both FOSS and proprietary apps; second, = life would be much easier for the average user for not only having access t= o more software but for being able to use it, too; and third, stores could = be more willing to sell GNU/Linux based hardware not having to worry about = software availability or support problems resulting from the lack of the sa= me.<br> <br>What I think autopackage is missing for this vision to come true are th= e following (understanding not everyone agrees with me on multiple points):= <br><br>(1) Building a central repository is a good idea, given certain con= ditions.=C2=A0 This would help build up critical mass, increasing the expos= ure, popularity, and marketability of autopackage's goals.=C2=A0 <br> =C2=A0 a. If the software maintainer is unwilling to maintain his/her/its&#= 39; own autopackage then it's a good thing to try and find a surrogate = maintainer until that person can be convinced to do it his/her/its' sel= f.<br> =C2=A0 b.=C2=A0 A surrogate maintained autopackage might act as a handy sta= rting point for the proper maintainer to take over from or at least learn f= rom in order to make a proper one.<br>=C2=A0=C2=A0 c.=C2=A0 A central repos= itory could provide a helpful infrastructure for project maintainers to mai= ntain a project within and also for users to seek out and compare applicati= on packages.=C2=A0 <br> <br>(2) My own view about most open source software applications is that th= ey are seldom (if ever) complete products.=C2=A0 I think it's a fine id= ea for someone else to build a solution based off of a typical existing ope= n source applications.. e.g. Open Office with books, video tutorials, and a= on-line support account, etc.<br> <font color=3D"#888888"> <br><br><br>Matthew</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br><br><div cl= ass=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Isak Savo <span dir=3D= "ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">isak.sav= [email protected]</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 2= 04, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"> <div><div></div><div>On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Pablo Garralda<<a= href=3D"mailto:[email protected]" target=3D"_blank">[email protected]<= /a>> wrote:<br> > Hi everybody,<br> > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Reading A= utopackage F.A.Q. I've just found a link to "Zero<br> > Install" which it seems to have an approach similar to Autopackag= e. In its<br> > site, there is a table comparing several options, including Zero insta= ll and<br> > Autopackage among others. Of course, According to its page, Zero Insta= ll<br> > rocks. ;)<br> ><br> > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Does anyb= ody know the advantages of Autopackage over Zero<br> > Install? Better portability, perhaps? Or its just a different approach= ?<br> <br> </div></div>Different approaches to the same problem basically. Zero instal= l tries<br> to remove (or reduce) this whole "i need to install an application<br> before I can use it" mantra that has been around since the operating<b= r> system was invented.<br> <br> Autopackage tries to solve the limitations of centralized software<br> distribution that exist in the linux world, allowing more of windows<br> .msi/setup.exe way of installing apps.<br> <br> That's the fundamental differences IMO.<br> <font color=3D"#888888"><br> -Isak<br> </font><div><div></div><div><br> ---------------------------------------------------------------------<br> To unsubscribe, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:autopackage-dev-unsubscribe@sunsi= te.dk" target=3D"_blank">autopackage-dev-unsubscribe-OfajU3CKLf1/[email protected]</a><br> For additional commands, e-mail: <a href=3D"mailto:autopackage-dev-help@sun= site.dk" target=3D"_blank">autopackage-dev-help-OfajU3CKLf1/[email protected]</a><br> <br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div> --0016364582b423546404705619b5--