Why are packages being held back

[Chris Miller]

On 7/16/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Chris Miller wrote:
>
>  > Realistically Windows is built the wrong way from the very ground up.
>   Start reading up on
> > MSDN about drivers for Windows and things of that nature and you'll
> > appreciate the simplicity of Linux.
>
> Linux has its own legacy complexity.  For instance, why is the delete
> command rm?  Because it has always been, back to when the memory

rm is short for "remove"

> difference between delete and rm was important (supposedly).  There are
> other examples.

Think different, man.  It's delete/rm. It doesn't matter.  Take a deep
breath.  Let go.  It's okay...

> >> upgrade, they sell you the new product.  It isn't a fix, it is an expense.
> >> When have you purchased a Microsoft product you didn't get a patch for
> >> within a week or so, and then with regularity until the next upgrade.
> >>
> >>  When Microsoft went from Win 98 to WinXP or whatever change they made, they
> >> called it an upgrade.  That is what you just reported in your email.  2
> >> upgrades.  In Linux, the terminology is similar, except an upgrade is not a
> >> fix, it is an improvement.  There are very few patches to LINUX products,
> >> because they are made as close to perfect before you get them as is
> >
> > lol.  Linux has more than it's fair share of bugs and broken bits.
> > However, Linux is more intelligent about how it handles them and about
> > how it structures the whole OS so it can recover from those errors
> > more gracefully.
>
> Also, apt updates /all/ the programs on your system, while Windows
> Update updates just Windows (and maybe Office).  This could never be
> replicated in the Windows/proprietary world.  It is specific to free
> software.

Which is kinda nice.  However, you can manually install other bits of
software in Linux (NOT wine, think Eclipse & Java & stuff) that won't
automatically update.  It's not perfect, but it's a  lot better than
this MS garbage.

> >>  Haven't you noticed you never need to defrag your Linux.  That is the
> >> reason.  You don't need a tool you will never use.  By the way, if it says
> >
> > That's because Linux's default file systems are self defragmenting.
> > They still are subject to defragmentation, but that's taken care of
> > during error scanning.  The algorithm treats fragmentation as a minor
> > error.
>
> Of course they still get fragemented.  But I agree that Linux file
> systems handle fragmentation better.

Much better.  They actually have an algorithm, not a random placement generator.

> >> patch, install that too, it will fix something; it is just that that will
> >> hardly ever happen with LINUX, and it is still better for your computer.
> >
> > It happens quite often that it fixes things.  Software is just such a
> > complex thing that even "upgrades" may inadvertently fix broken
> > things.  However, most of the bug fixes are so specific that the only
> > way to duplicate the bug is by having certain hardware.  Talk about
> > tough to find...
>
> I don't know about that...  There are still a /lot/ of
> architecture-independent bugs.

But that's over a lot more code.  Windows bugs occur over code equal
to roughly the size of the Linux kernel itself.  The Linux kernel has
more code than the Windows kernel & system, but most Linux bugs are
driver-related.  The rest of the bugs are from the software, which is
separate and different.

> >>  Take a deep breath and relax and press install.  If you are using Kubuntu
> >> by any chance, they have a program provided by their KDE application called
> >> Adept Manager that will blow your mind.  About 22,000 programs are there for
> >
> > I'd suggest Synaptic.  Adept is still under heavy development and
> > hasn't yet been certified to be even comprehensible to someone other
> > than a core developer.
>
> Certified by who?  I have no problem with Adept, though I often use the
> command-line for quick tasks.

I'm still addicted to aptitude, but Adept isn't safe for normal use.
Many core Adept developers admit this.  It's great that you like it,
that's good because it means that there will be more diversity in the
number of GUIs built for the same task.  However, generally speaking,
from a UI Design perspective, Adept isn't all that good.

> > There's tons of Beta stuff for Linux if you want it.  I ran Kubuntu
> > beta for a long while (then it went stable on me).  The beta stuff for
> > Linux is quite stable
>
> All this means is that they're conservative in what they call beta (true
> for some projects, not for all).  If you want the cutting edge, you do
> have to go to alpha/CVS/etc., and give up some of that stability.

Alpha stuff doesn't always compile.  If you want the most stable thing
ever, try Debian Stable.  The software is ancient, but the reliability
is greater than any other thing I could compare it to.