Re: Nix fixes dependency hell on all Linux distributions
Posted by: Anonymous
on December 23, 2008 11:22 AM
Typical arrogance of a debian fanatic. Well, I assume he is a debian fanboy because he so vehemently defends debian's policy.
Please, before I even argue, fix your distribution's problem of splitting every package in 100 different parts and then send these guys complaining
on the ruby mailing list about it. For it is your distribution's arrogant stance that "we dont have any problem" that is the real problem in the first
> As for installing different libs with every package... that's insane.
As is the idiotic debian solution to versioned binaries. What the heck is ruby1.8 ? It is a symlink to the binary ruby.
I laugh at these incompetent solutions. Why do you REQUIRE to have versioned binaries at all? And do you apply these
standards consistently? If one wants to use versioning, then versioning directories is the way to go.
> with debian, the few rare problems that this MIGHT fix are easily solved.
Yeah, typical debian attitude - we are perfect. We have no problem. Therefor nothing needs be fixed ...
But you know what is funny? Debian creates its own little niche, similar to the other big distributions.
These distributions become more and more incompatible to each other. You cant just easily mix
a .rpm with a .deb. Things will break soon.
This is not entirely debians fault alone, but it is the attitude such as above which spits onto users.
> a) Package manager gateways for closed systems like cpan, ctan, pear, etc
And another typical debian arrogance. Do you remember how python developers were annoyed
that debian crippled the default python install years ago by outfactoring required packages of python
standard install? I think it was setuptools or eggs, some thing that a "typical" python developer required.
A similar thing happened with ruby, and also with ruby gems. This is such a bullshit attitude, it makes me not
sad - it makes me very angry. And whenever I see "reasons" for such a solution repeated I will destroy them.
> b) Standardised, network-wide deployment and configuration (including hierarchical config and lockdown for EVERY tool/app on the system) by policies set in a directory like LDAP.
Dont give me the bullshit of the FHS and LSB. The whole notion of splitting packages and files everywhere is the wrong idea.
Apple has got it better than debian. Why? Because they arent governed by a bunch of monkeys in the first place.
> c) Highly integrated next-generation security policy tools like SELinux or AppArmor (installing policies when a package is installed, etc.)
Another useless dependency. Why need a user rely on these in the first place? I thought debian is so super secure.
> d) Auto-choosing and configuration of packages by FEATURES, not name.
Here, I actually find myself agreeing with you. However you go to the extent of UNINSTALLING something. I wonder if
debian apt/dpkg provides an easy way for this. I do not think so (and if it does, tell me how, so I can comment.)
> top solving things that are already solved, and work on a next-gen distro please.
I am not working on nix, or coding etc... I am just sympathetic for their cause.