Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 61

Which have to perfectly align with the original ones and can totally mess everything up if you're not careful, a fact I had direct experience with when the xorg-edgers repo completely effed up my installation and even after backing things out I ended up having to reinstall.

Meanwhile, Zero Install keeps each app separated and sandboxed and you could argue that it is better than adding a repo.

Comment Re:Interesting technology, needs PR (Score 1) 61

Right, but Ubuntu and others will never package Zero Install by default unless it started getting wider adoption because of two factors:

1. More apps need to start using it so it gets in higher demand.
2. Ubuntu and others benefit from market fragmentation. By having all the software in their repos which aren't compatible with other distros, that pulls users to their platform just for software access. This is of course contrary to what the free software and ubuntu philosophies are all about.

So for those who actually care about free software and about all users being able to access software, please help out Zero Install since it seems to be leading the rest of the cross-distro packaging solutions in features and momentum.

Comment Re:What a name (Score 1) 61

With Zero Install the packager can make the dependencies be whatever they want includiong the version numbers. If they didn't trust a library to not break things, they could even set the version == (require only that version and no other) if they wanted. The user can also force different versions to be used than the recommended one in case they ever disagreed with the packager.

Comment Re:Great Ideas Fail All The Time (Score 2) 61

You're confused and don't understand what Zero Install is. Maybe the feature list needs to be worded better, but it is infinitely better than "an RPM alternative" because it can run ALONG SIDE an existing package manager. Zero Install can be used on ANY DISTRO and can ADD TO that distro, so it will expand the number of packages that are accessible to users. If I release my software for Zero Install it means any user will be able to install it easily, get automatic updates, uninstall it easily, potentially share libraries with other programs, etc. That is better than a bunch of binaries laying around because you don't get all those features and nice cleanup with just releasing an archive of a binary your users run, and then you'd have to implement automatic updates in your binary as well.

So who cares if Zero Install doesn't have every app under the sun yet, the key part is that every app it does have will be available for anyone to use in any distro as long as those files and dependencies are hosted.

No more "you can't run this because you don't have glib.blahblahpoop", as long as it was packaged with the dependencies it will work for all Linux users.

Linux needs to be a proper single platform to unify community software efforts. I don't want my software to go unused and to not be of help to anyone just because 1970's UNIX fragmentation BS gets in the way of things.


Submission + - 0install reaches 2.0

tal197 writes: Zero Install, the decentralized cross-platform software installation system, announced 0install 2.0 today after 2 years in development. 0install allows authors to publish directly from their own web-sites, while supporting familiar features such as shared libraries, automatic updates, dependency handling and digital signatures. With more than one thousand packages now available, is this finally a viable platform?

Comment Re:FCC? (Score 1) 101

"real standards" are whatever the biggest vendors do. A standards committee at best documents what the biggest vendors do, and at worst produces a meaningless document. Often standards are in no way open - sucks, but life often does.

You don't think folks on the standards committees share your ideals? Most do, but then there's reality, and nothing in reality is more worthless then a standard that vendors don't choose to follow.

Because everyone knows there's no way a government can have the power to protect citizens and ensure corporations don't fuck them over by ensuring interoperability. It's not like they have these things called legislatures that can make laws or anything. Besides, corporations were created to give all the wealth of a nation (and world) to one or a small group of individuals, not for the common good of society!

Comment FCC? (Score 1) 101

Aren't standards something the FCC is supposed to protect? Even better though an international organization should champion standards. I would suggest the ISO but after the whole OOXML fiasco they seem to be okay with declaring these same kinds of proprietary standards as standards.

Real standards need to rely on only open pieces throughout, and revisions especially if frequent should be backwards compatible. If you break compatibility, you should be creating a totally new and separate standard.

Comment Re:Private information leakage. (Score 1) 255

Oh Slashdot, you're such a good opinion/polling testing site for corporations...

Mozilla, Google, and others make data mining revenue, so Canonical wants in too. Funny, since I've been doing a lot lately while browsing to prevent tracking with user agent strings, cookies, scripts, and am considering Tor to hide my IP even. Meanwhile, Ubuntu is headed in the opposite direction. Time to switch distros after this.

Comment Re:Easily disabled (Score 1) 646

There is no clear separation. When I do "quick searches" for private documents on my computer, I want to know that it is a search only on my computer. It's not in a "search online" lens, it's doing it in "search movies" and "search music". If you want to be data mined though, be my guest.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The way of the world is to praise dead saints and prosecute live ones." -- Nathaniel Howe