Announcement: One Click Installer

Jerome Haltom wasabi at
Wed Aug 8 19:07:35 UTC 2007

I agree with all of this. Except that I think what MS does is "just
fine.", and I've love to provide that ability for Ubuntu, and Ubuntu
alone. And so I will. Hence why I wrote,
and am just now getting motivated to finish it (after this

On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 12:10 -0600, Kevin Fries wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 10:09 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The two are not mutually exclusive, and an ideal solution would incorporate
> > both.
> I can't believe this conversation has gone on this long.  Its a really
> ill conceived idea that is either not explained very well, or has
> evolved during this thread.
> First of all, the OP wants a one click install.  But we already have
> that in GDebi, and the upcoming apt:// protocol.  If you publish
> software and use the software out of the Ubuntu repositories, both
> protocols will use the underlying APT system to pull dependencies, and
> install in a safe and sane manner.  If you are not building based upon
> the Ubuntu core, you are more likely to brick your system than to get
> any great functionality... so why would we encourage that behavior....
> because Microsoft does?  Can we find a better one?
> Microsoft does not have to worry about different distros and the OP is
> all upset that Linux can not reach it full potential until some high
> school kid from Tallahassee, Rio, or Queensland can simply compile there
> software, post it on the web, and allow it to be installed on all the
> distros.  The problem is that this is not possible.  The impossibility
> does not come from a technical problem, but instead a political one.
> Technical problems can be overcome with hard work and technology.
> Political problems will tie you up in knots for decades without any
> resolution.
> The real problem is that not all system use LSB nor do all system
> distribute their software as binaries.  Those distros that don't follow
> LSB will surely break if you install software that does.  Due to the
> nature of Linux, you can not enforce LSB.  Heck, LSB even leaves vague
> where several key items should be placed (lets start with /opt
> vs /usr/local or /usr/games vs /usr/shared/games) Therefore, any one
> size fits all installer will surely only serve a small portion of the
> install base.  As an example, I saw talk of re-inventing alien.  But a
> better Alien is only solving the RPM->DEB or DEB->RPM issue.  Lets not
> forget Gentoo's portage system and all its descendants like T2, Rock,
> Puppy, etc.  If one size truly fit all, ever woman in America should be
> walking around in a Muumuu.  Ladies? Guys want to suggest this to your
> lady?  The reason is that women are not all walking around in muumuus is
> the same reason this idea will fail... One size does not fit all, and
> different systems will require different solutions.  Viva la difference!
> While the dream is nobble, and probably worth while, this is not the
> solution.  A better solution would be from the compilation and tools
> side.  A better solution would be to provide a single tool that takes
> the code, and packages it for deb, rpm, ipkg, tar.gz, and an ebuild all
> in one command.  Then package it up with a solid testing and approval
> process that makes it easy to get it into the approved repositories for
> each distro.  Maybe a clearing house system for packages.  Once an
> independent developer builds their new nifty widget generator, the nwg
> project could be posted easily to all the major (and even minor)
> projects all at once.
> Without running software though the various testing processes to insure
> it is safe, we will have the same problem that has Microsoft in the
> situation they are in right now.  Microsoft has such a commanding lead,
> and there market share is slowly dwindling.  The battle is being lost in
> Redmond, and stability, viruses, bloat, and cost are all playing their
> part.  Linux has MS on all these parts.  Linux is more popular than
> ever.  Why would we ever want to begin copying Microsoft's bad habits.
> One step installer sounds great, but it can not be done safely.
> As for the OPs problem with Synaptic... That is 500% off base.  I know
> this because I have sat down with end users and showed them synaptic,
> and the gnome installer.  If more geeks like us did this with their
> favorite Windows user, I believe there would be more people asking why
> Windows does not install as nicely as Linux.  Want proof?
> Has anyone stopped to think that in our quest to solve bug #1, that the
> answer is not to make Linux behave like Windows, but instead, show
> Windows users a taste of what Linux does well.  Linux already does
> package management well... very well.
> Now can we get onto other problems????

More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list