The Future of Autopackage?

[Animortis]

Alright, I'm a Linux newbie, but I've been dabbling in Linux for years.

When I started in linux four years ago, with SuSE 7.1, I remember there was one major problem with what I wanted to do with Linux: The ability to update and install software.

The repository and package updating systems, including yum, apt-get and Yast, made things brilliantly easier for people like me: A non-developer-oriented user. My time is precious and I'm trained in things other than coding, but I still hate Windows. Linux is my primary operating system, and I only use Windows for gaming (though I hope to one day rectify that with Cedega, presuming they ever get it to work right).

I was reading the thread on helping Linux systems for newbies, and I saw precious little about the package installing progress of autopackage.org. If there was ever a hinderance to the development of Linux on a ... More basic-user scale, the inability to put whatever software you want on it all the time would have to be the best possible instance of that. I think even the gui could be gotten over if a basic Linux user didn't have to go looking for a way to circumvent the limits of developer repositories. Heck, I make good use of the stuff off the livna and Fedora repositories, but sometimes I wonder if there's any better software out there that are beyond my understanding to run and install.

So did anyone in-the-know happen to find out if this autopackage thing is getting any development by the major distros, or even just a minor distro? Heck, if a distro didn't have anything but a basic install, the ability to easily install software would make it a viable newbie OS. And if not autopackage, is there anything else developers are supposedly looking at to get this sort of feature in Linux distos?

[daacosta]

Well... Dude the amount of software that you can get at sourceforge.net or many other places is just overwhelming. I am into chess and two programs that I happen to love are xboard and scid. I couldn't get scid through yum so I had to install it from source [Several guys here kicked my ass before I managed to overcome my laziness and read the f^&%ing manual.]

So, where am I going here? Oh, right! There are repositories for your OS with some cool packages that you can install automatically through apt-get and yum. Some other packages you have to install from source. And... If you think carefully about this you will see that Winblows is similar in that respect: It automatically updates itself but if you need specific software you have to buy it from other place or download it and execute it but the main point is that not all software can go to a master repository alone in any OS.

The thing is that you have to download a program in Winblows, and then execute and then reboot... Things are just minutely more complicated with Linux but not so much as to deter a newbie from learning how to do it.

As somebody told me here: Install it from source! COME ON!

[Animortis]

LOL I realize. But again, it can be terribly complicated and my luck is rotten for such things. RPMs sometimes don't work because of dependancies. That's why I love yum in Fedora - It just works! But perhaps you have a point. Looking into compiling from source might be viable, presuming it works ever.

Anyway, I'm still interested in where this program's going, it does hold a lot of potential I think. Even if it's only supported in the mindless-distros (Linspire, Xandros, etc.) I think it'd be a good step. So if anyone knows... Share?

[daacosta]

sometimes I wonder if there's any better software out there that are beyond my understanding to run and install.

That was my asnwer to this question: compile from source. In regards to the garden variety software I don't think there is anything wrong with what's offered in the repositories. The OOo suite is good enough, Gimp is cool...

[Vergil83]

So did anyone in-the-know happen to find out if this autopackage thing is getting any development by the major distros, or even just a minor distro? Heck, if a distro didn't have anything but a basic install, the ability to easily install software would make it a viable newbie OS. And if not autopackage, is there anything else developers are supposedly looking at to get this sort of feature in Linux distos?

I am not aware of any distros that a providing large amounts of support to it, most likely because they have their own package managers they are trying to make "the best" .

Why is there a need for another way to install gaim, when it is easier to just apt-get install gaim (or yum blah....). It seems more work to me, to go to gaim's site, download an autopackage, and wait for it to do its thing.


I think that the future of autopackage is not in large/complex programs, but more simple programs, that will can't be installed via apt-get, because to few use them.

Just MHO.

[Anonymous1c4]

The problem with source and newbies is that they don't understand dependincies. The only time newbies experienced this on windows would be when they need some sort of file to just run the program...on linux, you need other files to actually install it...then you have to see if you have all the libraries in order to run it. Plus, window users don't like having to read an install guide to install a certain program or driver.... This is just what i understand from my experience though...

[borromini]

The problem with source and newbies is that they don't understand dependincies. The only time newbies experienced this on windows would be when they need some sort of file to just run the program...on linux, you need other files to actually install it...then you have to see if you have all the libraries in order to run it. Plus, window users don't like having to read an install guide to install a certain program or driver.... This is just what i understand from my experience though...

On Windows, programs have dependencies too. The huge difference is a windows package (.exe) often already contains the necessary libs (static), while in linux that's not the case most of the time (shared libraries).

[techieMoe]

On Windows, programs have dependencies too. The huge difference is a windows package (.exe) often already contains the necessary libs (static), while in linux that's not the case most of the time (shared libraries).

To further add to this, every install of Microsoft Windows has the same basic libraries (DLLs) installed, therefore the folks creating the installers (such as InstallShield) can rely on those libraries to make everything look and act uniform.

This is not possible with Linux in its current form because the Linux kernel itself is the only piece of software *guaranteed* to be on every Linux system.

[chopin1810]

They should probably make standard DLLs then

[Animortis]

The funny thing is, I just installed a program with autopackage and it doesn't work. Installed okay, but running it does nothing. :/

Though this does clarify the necessity for these repository-based install programs, the idea I'm getting from all this is the open-source nature of Linux is what's leaving it so vulnerable to these dependency issues. Therefore, a trade-off must be made.