This is a read-only archive. Find the latest Linux articles, documentation, and answers at the new Linux.com!

Linux.com

Re:So they were dissatisfied, that is.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on February 17, 2007 02:05 AM
I've recently commented on ROX-Filer here, and on LWN, arguing that while it has a bunch of nice features, overall it's not something you want to give your parents or your customers: it's quirky<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

Exactly. ROX isn't a drop-in Windows replacement. If we cared about making money from it, and targeting the biggest market, we'd probably change it as you suggest.

But that isn't the goal. This is Free software - we like it this way. I suggested your design on the mailing list as one alternative many years ago when I implemented the feature. No-one wanted it that way.

But as long as we're willing to write ROX, and there are people who want to use it as we build it then we should be able to do that, without any needing to convince dozens of distributions that we've done our market research to justify their efforts.

There's a wider issue here, too, which the Autopackage devs also mention. Upstream often implements features in a very open way, with discussion on the mailing lists between all interested parties. Alternatives are tried; feedback and experiences are collected. The carefully produced package is released... only for a lone packager, only vaguely following what's going on ("maintaining some hundred and a half packages" to use your phrase), to make some unilateral change that undoes it all.

Now it may be that some kind of Windows/ROX hybrid would be useful to some people. You're free to make one, or to pay someone else to make one. And if you distribute it through Zero Install, then anyone on any distribution will be able to use it, if that's what they want.

#

Return to Zero Install: An executable critique of native package systems