All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software

Another reason why I do not like MS

<< < (2/2)

panic8:

quote:Why the hell should I be forced to use an OS to do coding? Yeah am talking about .net that i willbe taking next semester.

If you cantbeat them, blackmail them and use their stupidity against them. Thats what MS does.  

 It would really help, if Linux went all out, no rules exposure with advertisments. But installing programs should get easier. Ordinary jo smoes dont want their heads bothered with tar files.
--- End quote ---


Yep, bazukas, I agree with both points.  MS vis studio .net will be the killer of all other OSes and competitors to the Evil Empire if it gets any ground.   :(   I really think there should be an antitrust case set up against M$, investigating and ending their efforts to ensure further market dominance/monopolisation (definately not the corrupted U.S. anyway (the last ones were a total joke, weren't they? they achieved *nothing*), maybe Europe should establish them).  As I saw on a thread on DesktopLinux.com, .net = .takeover.  

It ties in nicely with Palladium.  I saw an M$ ad, and a little badge saying:  "Microsoft:  Hardware - Software - Compatibilty", it should be more like "Hardware - Software - Lock-in".  There will be absolutely no escape from M$, it will be the ultimate in closed technology and denial of freedom/control.  :mad:

As for the Linux installation problem, I feel the same way.  RPM and apt have to go, and we have to adopt and develop a unified Linux software installation system.  I've been pondering on the notion for a while now and have a few ideas for it, but I don't have the programming abilities.  I might share them with void man or the other coders sometimes.  It's really an important issue, because if we don't sort out these standards, when Linux is adopted as a desktop system, they will make their own standards.  To name one, this system can't be released under the GPL, as this will lead to the kind of fragmentation and sub-versions of RPM.  It has to be open, but not freely modifyable; it has to be focused.  It should also be independant of distribution (one reason why I reject RPM and apt).

Fett101:

quote:Originally posted by void main:


That's where apt-get for RPM comes in handy. As long as said RPMs are in the apt repository that is. Everyone who puts out code should make sure it gets into the repository so I can be happy...
--- End quote ---



Unless you, insanely enough, havn't been able to get apt-get installed yet because you havn't gotten the depedencies worked out yet. It's just like gods laughing at me.

'course, then I'll find out it was on mandrake the whole time. (it's not, is it?)

voidmain:
You really need Red Hat 8.0. Most of your headaches would be gone:

http://voidmain.kicks-ass.net/redhat/redhat_8_apt-get_must_have.html

Bazoukas:
it really does kick ass. Well RedHat alltogether kicks ass IMHO.

beltorak0:
how about a simple hack until we can get a good design for a unified install protocol?  something along the lines of having an executable (script or binary) called "auto-install" that resides in the top level of the tarball that would be executed automatically after extraction and decompression... it is even feasable to have another file, "auto-install.conf" for example, that would contain version control information and any thing else that needs to be handled specially.  This would be best implemented in tar/gunzip/bunzip2 by the addition of a flag that when specified would run the script/program, and a simple alias to include the flag like "--autoinst [filename]" for the users who don't quite grasp what is involved with a package installation.  the flag should allow for it's reverse, "--no-autoinst" so you can always turn it off at the command line if "--autoinst" is specified in an alias.  of course this applies more towards source tarballs since the rpm's have a (fairly) good auto-install mechanism, and usually those who do local compiles wouldn't need it.

so what in particular isn't easy about rpm installs that you feel needs much improvement?

besides "--dependancy-hell=on" which obviously needs all the help it can get....

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page