Universal Package Manager System for Linux? - Linux

This is a discussion on Universal Package Manager System for Linux? - Linux ; Hi All, I have used a few Linux desktop distros for the past couple of years now, and one thing that really bugs me, is that almost each Linux distro has its own package management system - and building and ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

  1. Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    Hi All,

    I have used a few Linux desktop distros for the past couple of years
    now, and one thing that really bugs me, is that almost each Linux
    distro has its own package management system - and building and
    installing a driver or an application from source requires dropping to
    command mode and issuing an variable number of commands.

    In my experience, the ordinary people feel, that Linux is for geeks
    only, and it is too complicated system for an ordinary person to
    install and use. Some distros (like *ubuntu) make installation process
    like a snap, although their disk partition process is still quite
    complicated, unless you want to use entire disk for the Linux.

    As I see it, if Linux wants to be a major desktop operating system, it
    needs a simple AND unified on-click package management system, which
    is so simple that even my 80 year old grandmother is able to install
    applications and needed drivers on her system.

    Yes, I agree that some distros are not meant to be used by an average
    person, but still, I think that even LFS (Linux from Scratch) and
    Gentoo could benefit from this unified package management system.

    This unified one-click package manager should work on any (major)
    Linux distro and it should have following abilities:

    - Install a distro dependent pre-compiled application / driver binary
    - Compile and install a distro dependent application / driver from the
    source
    - Recompile and reinstall the driver automatically if the kernel
    version changes
    - Compile an application/driver from the general source, apply a
    distro specific patches, and install it automatically
    - Install (and optionally compile) any dependencies automatically
    - Remove selected application and its dependencies
    - Take a snapshot of the current system state (applications and
    drivers)
    - Restore (rebuild) the system automatically to a given state

    This list is only for getting an idea, what the unified package
    manager should be able to do. However, all this should be done by a
    "one-click" and automagically to the user. It doesn't rule out
    possibilities that a user could select some options for the package at
    installation time. The unified package manager should also hide all
    distro specific quirks, so that user don't have to practically know
    anything about the system and where the binaries and/or sources are
    located and installed. I do acknowledge that the /etc-files are
    problematic at the moment.

    Maybe this system needs some kind of top-level centralized database,
    which has references to all known (registered) applications/drivers
    and drivers source code and dependencies. This top level database
    could also contain some application specific options and features that
    a user could select before compilation. This top-level database, would
    be updated from the distros, so that if any distro "registers" an
    application/driver for its use, this top level database should get
    notified also about this, so that the other distros get to know about
    this, too. This would give also some kind of inter-distro visibility
    which might be useful for the distro maintainers and advanced users.
    If someone registers a new application/driver (or a new version of the
    application/driver) to this top level database, all the distro
    maintainers could see this and decide whether or not to include this
    version to their distro.

    In parallel to this centralized database, there would be distro-
    specific top level database, which would contain actual "physical"
    source code for the application / driver. This will provide some
    redundancy storage if the package is "removed" from its original www
    location, it is still available through some distro's database.

    Then there may need to be another distro specific second level
    database, which would contain patches and installation scripts etc.
    This second level database might contain also some distro specific
    installation options.

    Then there night be a third level (informal) distributed database for
    a customized systems and applications which are based on specific
    distro.

    Here are some thoughts about this unified package management system.
    The bottom line is, that if Linux really wants to become a desktop
    operating system for the masses, it really needs to provide a simple
    and unified package management system so that an average non-geek user
    can select and install any application and/or a driver either for a
    pre-built distro specific binary, or from the (general?) source, and
    the system should (compile) and install the driver/application and all
    its dependencies automagically.

    Br,
    TS

  2. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    Hi,

    maybe Klik [1] has most features you want.

    Bye,
    Tassilo
    __________
    [1] http://klik.atekon.de/
    --
    The movie "Delta Force" was extremely hard to make because Chuck had to
    downplay his abilities. The first few cuts were completely unbelievable.

  3. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    Hi,

    maybe Klik [1] has most features you want.

    Bye,
    Tassilo
    __________
    [1] http://klik.atekon.de/
    --
    The movie "Delta Force" was extremely hard to make because Chuck had to
    downplay his abilities. The first few cuts were completely unbelievable.

  4. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    On 1 heinš, 14:20, Tassilo Horn wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > maybe Klik [1] has most features you want.
    >
    > Bye,
    > Tassilo


    Hi Tassilo,

    I looked at Klik, and sort of like the concept. But Klik doesn't
    really support drivers and compiling applications/drivers from the
    source. And if I understood it correctly, each application is supplied
    with all libraries it needs, and thus creating quite a lot of
    redundancy in disk usage. This may not be an issue with current high
    capacity hard disks and fast internet connections. However, for
    example, security updates for the used libraries/applications might be
    a bit problematic as all Klik packages are just a bunch of files in a
    compressed file system and the affected packages need to be downloaded
    again.

    Br,
    TS

  5. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    On 1 heinš, 14:20, Tassilo Horn wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > maybe Klik [1] has most features you want.
    >
    > Bye,
    > Tassilo


    Hi Tassilo,

    I looked at Klik, and sort of like the concept. But Klik doesn't
    really support drivers and compiling applications/drivers from the
    source. And if I understood it correctly, each application is supplied
    with all libraries it needs, and thus creating quite a lot of
    redundancy in disk usage. This may not be an issue with current high
    capacity hard disks and fast internet connections. However, for
    example, security updates for the used libraries/applications might be
    a bit problematic as all Klik packages are just a bunch of files in a
    compressed file system and the affected packages need to be downloaded
    again.

    Br,
    TS

  6. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?


    > - Install a distro dependent pre-compiled application / driver binary
    > - Compile and install a distro dependent application / driver from the
    > source
    > - Recompile and reinstall the driver automatically if the kernel
    > version changes
    > - Compile an application/driver from the general source, apply a
    > distro specific patches, and install it automatically
    > - Install (and optionally compile) any dependencies automatically
    > - Remove selected application and its dependencies
    > - Take a snapshot of the current system state (applications and
    > drivers)
    > - Restore (rebuild) the system automatically to a given state


    Gentoo/Emerge has all this. You just need a good cup of coffee to get it
    compiled.


  7. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?


    > - Install a distro dependent pre-compiled application / driver binary
    > - Compile and install a distro dependent application / driver from the
    > source
    > - Recompile and reinstall the driver automatically if the kernel
    > version changes
    > - Compile an application/driver from the general source, apply a
    > distro specific patches, and install it automatically
    > - Install (and optionally compile) any dependencies automatically
    > - Remove selected application and its dependencies
    > - Take a snapshot of the current system state (applications and
    > drivers)
    > - Restore (rebuild) the system automatically to a given state


    Gentoo/Emerge has all this. You just need a good cup of coffee to get it
    compiled.


  8. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    On 1 heinš, 17:33, "Gernot Frisch" wrote:
    > > - Install a distro dependent pre-compiled application / driver binary
    > > - Compile and install a distro dependent application / driver from the
    > > source
    > > - Recompile and reinstall the driver automatically if the kernel
    > > version changes
    > > - Compile an application/driver from the general source, apply a
    > > distro specific patches, and install it automatically
    > > - Install (and optionally compile) any dependencies automatically
    > > - Remove selected application and its dependencies
    > > - Take a snapshot of the current system state (applications and
    > > drivers)
    > > - Restore (rebuild) the system automatically to a given state

    >
    > Gentoo/Emerge has all this. You just need a good cup of coffee to get it
    > compiled.


    Yes, Gentoo's Portage is a flexible tool but it is not used by *buntu,
    Debian, RHat or Suse distros.

    In my opinion, the ultimate goal should be that each and every main
    Linux (and BSD) distro would use the same universal and unified
    package management system, so that the end-user would always have the
    same experience no matter what distro one uses.

  9. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    On 1 heinš, 17:33, "Gernot Frisch" wrote:
    > > - Install a distro dependent pre-compiled application / driver binary
    > > - Compile and install a distro dependent application / driver from the
    > > source
    > > - Recompile and reinstall the driver automatically if the kernel
    > > version changes
    > > - Compile an application/driver from the general source, apply a
    > > distro specific patches, and install it automatically
    > > - Install (and optionally compile) any dependencies automatically
    > > - Remove selected application and its dependencies
    > > - Take a snapshot of the current system state (applications and
    > > drivers)
    > > - Restore (rebuild) the system automatically to a given state

    >
    > Gentoo/Emerge has all this. You just need a good cup of coffee to get it
    > compiled.


    Yes, Gentoo's Portage is a flexible tool but it is not used by *buntu,
    Debian, RHat or Suse distros.

    In my opinion, the ultimate goal should be that each and every main
    Linux (and BSD) distro would use the same universal and unified
    package management system, so that the end-user would always have the
    same experience no matter what distro one uses.

  10. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    tsaar2003@yahoo.com writes:

    [...]

    > As I see it, if Linux wants to be a major desktop operating system, it
    > needs a simple AND unified on-click package management system, which
    > is so simple that even my 80 year old grandmother is able to install
    > applications and needed drivers on her system.


    As I see it, Linux is an operating system kernel and it does not
    'want' anything. Further, '80 years old grandmothers' don't manage
    their Windows systems, either, they call their nephews for help,
    generalized: Windows is much to complicated for most people and a
    really large number of people make a living by providing tech support
    for it.

    [...]

    > Here are some thoughts about this unified package management system.
    > The bottom line is, that if Linux really wants to become a desktop
    > operating system for the masses,


    The bottom line is that I can use a Linux-based system on my desktop
    (at work and at home, although I use the latter mainly as terminal)
    and I really don't care about 'the masses' (of morons providing free
    tech support for Windows to all their acquaintances). These 'masses'
    may chose to learn or not learn how to work with Linux-based systems
    at their own discretion and for the ones who would rather avoid that:
    There is a nice, hypercomplicated and highly flawed commercial OS
    available from a certain company located in Redmond, Wash. and it is
    called Windows. Give it a try.


  11. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    tsaar2003@yahoo.com writes:

    [...]

    > As I see it, if Linux wants to be a major desktop operating system, it
    > needs a simple AND unified on-click package management system, which
    > is so simple that even my 80 year old grandmother is able to install
    > applications and needed drivers on her system.


    As I see it, Linux is an operating system kernel and it does not
    'want' anything. Further, '80 years old grandmothers' don't manage
    their Windows systems, either, they call their nephews for help,
    generalized: Windows is much to complicated for most people and a
    really large number of people make a living by providing tech support
    for it.

    [...]

    > Here are some thoughts about this unified package management system.
    > The bottom line is, that if Linux really wants to become a desktop
    > operating system for the masses,


    The bottom line is that I can use a Linux-based system on my desktop
    (at work and at home, although I use the latter mainly as terminal)
    and I really don't care about 'the masses' (of morons providing free
    tech support for Windows to all their acquaintances). These 'masses'
    may chose to learn or not learn how to work with Linux-based systems
    at their own discretion and for the ones who would rather avoid that:
    There is a nice, hypercomplicated and highly flawed commercial OS
    available from a certain company located in Redmond, Wash. and it is
    called Windows. Give it a try.


  12. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    On 1 heinš, 19:37, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
    > tsaar2...@yahoo.com writes:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > > As I see it, if Linux wants to be a major desktop operating system, it
    > > needs a simple AND unified on-click package management system, which
    > > is so simple that even my 80 year old grandmother is able to install
    > > applications and needed drivers on her system.

    >
    > As I see it, Linux is an operating system kernel and it does not
    > 'want' anything. Further, '80 years old grandmothers' don't manage
    > their Windows systems, either, they call their nephews for help,
    > generalized: Windows is much to complicated for most people and a
    > really large number of people make a living by providing tech support
    > for it.


    Yes, I know that Linux is the kernel and most of the operating system
    utilities come from GNU.

    True, but why they call their nephews? Because it requires more than
    one click to install the software. And I don't any reason why Linux
    distros could not be much simpler to manage than Windows. At least
    Linux community has this possibility, all it requires will and some
    kind of consensus between distros.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > > Here are some thoughts about this unified package management system.
    > > The bottom line is, that if Linux really wants to become a desktop
    > > operating system for the masses,

    >
    > The bottom line is that I can use a Linux-based system on my desktop
    > (at work and at home, although I use the latter mainly as terminal)
    > and I really don't care about 'the masses' (of morons providing free
    > tech support for Windows to all their acquaintances). These 'masses'
    > may chose to learn or not learn how to work with Linux-based systems
    > at their own discretion and for the ones who would rather avoid that:
    > There is a nice, hypercomplicated and highly flawed commercial OS
    > available from a certain company located in Redmond, Wash. and it is
    > called Windows. Give it a try.


    I have used Windows from version 3.0 up to Vista, and I have used
    different Linux distros too.

    Why there are some many Windows support persons? That's because
    Windows is more popular that Linux. If Linux were as popular as
    Windows, there would be at least equal amount of support persons in
    both camps.

    Maybe you like to see Linux as geek operating system which is not
    intended to masses (ie. computer-illiterate persons), but I'd like to
    see it *the* operating system for the computer-illiterate user. Why?
    Because it's free, its secure, it runs on simple hardware like
    inexpensive notebooks, and it can be made simple to use and maintain.

    -TS

  13. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    On 1 heinš, 19:37, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
    > tsaar2...@yahoo.com writes:
    >
    > [...]
    >
    > > As I see it, if Linux wants to be a major desktop operating system, it
    > > needs a simple AND unified on-click package management system, which
    > > is so simple that even my 80 year old grandmother is able to install
    > > applications and needed drivers on her system.

    >
    > As I see it, Linux is an operating system kernel and it does not
    > 'want' anything. Further, '80 years old grandmothers' don't manage
    > their Windows systems, either, they call their nephews for help,
    > generalized: Windows is much to complicated for most people and a
    > really large number of people make a living by providing tech support
    > for it.


    Yes, I know that Linux is the kernel and most of the operating system
    utilities come from GNU.

    True, but why they call their nephews? Because it requires more than
    one click to install the software. And I don't any reason why Linux
    distros could not be much simpler to manage than Windows. At least
    Linux community has this possibility, all it requires will and some
    kind of consensus between distros.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > > Here are some thoughts about this unified package management system.
    > > The bottom line is, that if Linux really wants to become a desktop
    > > operating system for the masses,

    >
    > The bottom line is that I can use a Linux-based system on my desktop
    > (at work and at home, although I use the latter mainly as terminal)
    > and I really don't care about 'the masses' (of morons providing free
    > tech support for Windows to all their acquaintances). These 'masses'
    > may chose to learn or not learn how to work with Linux-based systems
    > at their own discretion and for the ones who would rather avoid that:
    > There is a nice, hypercomplicated and highly flawed commercial OS
    > available from a certain company located in Redmond, Wash. and it is
    > called Windows. Give it a try.


    I have used Windows from version 3.0 up to Vista, and I have used
    different Linux distros too.

    Why there are some many Windows support persons? That's because
    Windows is more popular that Linux. If Linux were as popular as
    Windows, there would be at least equal amount of support persons in
    both camps.

    Maybe you like to see Linux as geek operating system which is not
    intended to masses (ie. computer-illiterate persons), but I'd like to
    see it *the* operating system for the computer-illiterate user. Why?
    Because it's free, its secure, it runs on simple hardware like
    inexpensive notebooks, and it can be made simple to use and maintain.

    -TS

  14. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    tsaar writes:
    > In my opinion, the ultimate goal should be that each and every main Linux
    > (and BSD) distro would use the same universal and unified package
    > management system, so that the end-user would always have the same
    > experience no matter what distro one uses.


    In other words, eliminate all but one distribution.

    There is a name for that. It is called "Vista".
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  15. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    On 1 heinš, 20:01, John Hasler wrote:
    > tsaar writes:
    > > In my opinion, the ultimate goal should be that each and every main Linux
    > > (and BSD) distro would use the same universal and unified package
    > > management system, so that the end-user would always have the same
    > > experience no matter what distro one uses.

    >
    > In other words, eliminate all but one distribution.
    >
    > There is a name for that. It is called "Vista".
    > --


    Njaah, I wouldn't like to see Vista here And I don't see any reason
    why different distros could not use a identical unified package
    management system. As I stated in my first posting, I do acknowledge
    that not all distros are targeted for general desktop users. Using the
    unified package management system doesn't need to mean that all the
    distros should be the same, only basic package handling and
    application/driver installation would be similar from distro to
    distro, from the user point of view.

  16. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    TS writes:
    > And I don't any reason why Linux distros could not be much simpler to
    > manage than Windows. At least Linux community has this possibility, all
    > it requires will and some kind of consensus between distros.


    Why do you think this requires the elimination if differences between the
    distributions?

    > Maybe you like to see Linux as geek operating system which is not
    > intended to masses (ie. computer-illiterate persons),


    He can have that.

    > ...but I'd like to see it *the* operating system for the
    > computer-illiterate user. Why? Because it's free, its secure, it runs on
    > simple hardware like inexpensive notebooks, and it can be made simple to
    > use and maintain.


    And you can have that as well. Go to it: start a distribution. You won't
    be the first.
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  17. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    tsaar writes:
    > I don't see any reason why different distros could not use a identical
    > unified package management system.


    Many of them do: they see their package management system as what makes
    them better.

    > As I stated in my first posting, I do acknowledge that not all distros
    > are targeted for general desktop users.


    Why should they use your package manager?

    > Using the unified package management system doesn't need to mean that all
    > the distros should be the same, only basic package handling and
    > application/driver installation would be similar from distro to distro,
    > from the user point of view.


    Why does it matter to your grandmotherly user what package manager I use
    when she probably is not aware of the existance of other distributions (or
    of the very concept of a distribution) at all?
    --
    John Hasler
    john@dhh.gt.org
    Dancing Horse Hill
    Elmwood, WI USA

  18. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    On 2008-07-01, John Hasler wrote:

    >> ...but I'd like to see it *the* operating system for the
    >> computer-illiterate user. Why? Because it's free, its secure,
    >> it runs on simple hardware like inexpensive notebooks, and it
    >> can be made simple to use and maintain.

    >
    > And you can have that as well. Go to it: start a
    > distribution. You won't be the first.


    Nor will he be the last. We've already got quite a few
    "unified universal" package management schemes from which to
    choose.

    The more the merrier!

    --
    Grant Edwards grante Yow! This is a NO-FRILLS
    at flight -- hold th' CANADIAN
    visi.com BACON!!

  19. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    Hello,

    tsaar2003@yahoo.com wrote:

    > As I see it, if Linux wants to be a major desktop operating system, it
    > needs a simple AND unified on-click package management system, which
    > is so simple that even my 80 year old grandmother is able to install
    > applications and needed drivers on her system.


    There is no package system out there which is perfect, no commercial
    systems and none of the opensource systems, all have had misconceptions
    and errors from time to time. They are all work in progress. Most of
    their differences originate in different goals of those writing the
    management, of those packing the packages, of those using and
    installing the packages. The biggest hindrance towards unification is
    that most are satisfied with their current solution, and doing it even
    better than to satisfaction is not possible. Your real task is to unify
    developers, users and packagers in a way that they give up the specific
    advantages of their current solution for the unification, and that will
    not work as history tells. At its best it degrades into just another
    package manager with its share of followers.

    Bernd Strieder


  20. Re: Universal Package Manager System for Linux?

    Hello,

    tsaar2003@yahoo.com wrote:

    > As I see it, if Linux wants to be a major desktop operating system, it
    > needs a simple AND unified on-click package management system, which
    > is so simple that even my 80 year old grandmother is able to install
    > applications and needed drivers on her system.


    There is no package system out there which is perfect, no commercial
    systems and none of the opensource systems, all have had misconceptions
    and errors from time to time. They are all work in progress. Most of
    their differences originate in different goals of those writing the
    management, of those packing the packages, of those using and
    installing the packages. The biggest hindrance towards unification is
    that most are satisfied with their current solution, and doing it even
    better than to satisfaction is not possible. Your real task is to unify
    developers, users and packagers in a way that they give up the specific
    advantages of their current solution for the unification, and that will
    not work as history tells. At its best it degrades into just another
    package manager with its share of followers.

    Bernd Strieder


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast