Sorry if I offended there VL, its just you made some statements that sure indicated to me that you don't understand how the packaging models work. The Linux packaging models, deb, rpm, packman are not derived from Unix, indeed, they are part of the reason that the big corps are abandoning Unix in favour of linux.
No need to apologize - you didn't offend me. Everything is OK. With this "pointer", it was such a joke on my part
I've been familiar with Linux package models for a long time, but I don't agree with this approach. The general idea of the packages was noble - do not duplicate files (libraries) in the system. But... Linux is developed by a huge number of people, some of whom don't want to get along with others (that's the nature of humans as a species). This causes some differences in the Linux architecture (distribution), which can be burdensome for users. There are different versions of libraries in different distributions, and they are not always backwards compatible. Upgrading Linux may cause a new version of a library to appear on your system, and then some programs may stop working or may malfunction. In addition, breaking the program into packages makes it difficult to install. The user is forced to keep track of package dependencies - what packages should be installed and in what order. In fact, the user should not be forced to learn the technical details of the program being installed. Usually these nuances are known (or at least should be known) best by its author.
Personally, I prefer the deb model over the less mature rpm but both murder the Windows model of installing a full OS with every (significant) app. "Yes, I know you already have something.dll installed, possibly in several places, but our app requires our special version of something.dll. Oh, and a couple of reboots during the install please."
In Windows, of course, there is the problem of duplicating some libraries in some applications. But it is not a common phenomenon. Interestingly, there has long been a common files directory in Windows (usually found in: "C:\Program Files\Common Files"), but not all software developers use it. But installing software on this system really is trivial (there are rare cases where it isn't).
Perhaps in Linux it is technically possible to avoid the problem of breaking up programs into packages, so that the average user can install them simply, while at the same time without duplicating files. Since the packages are downloaded from the server, and the maintainer of the program (of a given Linux distribution) prepares the installation files, maybe it would be enough to refine the whole thing so that everything is installed automatically, without the console and without harassing the user with messages that are not very understandable (for him). Unfortunately, the side effect will be to complicate the setup program much more than it is now. In addition, to implement such a model, a certain IT regime is needed (e.g. such as Torvalds implements for the Linux kernel) with a certain amount of reasonable approach to software ergonomics.
However, I believe that this cannot be implemented in the Linux community, because there is a lot of IT anarchy here. On the one hand, there is pressure and the desire to promote Linux "among the people" and on the other there is talk for "the laziness and dullness of this people". These are mutually exclusive approaches. For many years, the decision-makers of the major Linux distributions could not get the simple idea that a desktop computer used by an "ordinary user" is not a server. Regular user:
- will not admire Linux,
- will not be familiar with its architecture,
- will not sing hymns of praise to the wisdom of the creators of the system,
- will not beautify the system (icons, colors and other whistles and bells).
He will only want to do his job (at the company, at school, at home) or he will use this computer for entertainment (gaming, watching movies, listening to music, etc.) in the simplest way he knows. Without using "console spells". Because that's what normal users do with a Windows computer.
Therefore, there will never be widespread use of Linux on desktops. And Android is used because it isolates the common "common" user from the "guts of Linux".
In my experience, people know about Linux (that it exists, that you don't have to pay for it, etc.). Many have come into contact with him. And they have an opinion about it that it is a system for maniacs who: "like to mess with the computer and software". In other words, average computer users treat Linux enthusiasts in the same way they treat motorcycle or car enthusiasts, where the vehicle is mostly stationary and its owner "pokes around" for pleasure (such a hobby).
First, I logged into Linux as root. I created a small project in Lazarus (GUI). The project files have been saved correctly. The project compiled without problems. It also debugs without problems.
That is somewhat unexpected behavior from an experienced linux user.
On the contrary. Pay attention to the board of this computer. It is not a server or a workstation. It's like an overgrown RaspberryPi, only with an Intel processor. It also has a GPIO connector (40 pins, layout quite compatible with the RPi). I use it for electronics and programming experiments. By logging in as root, I avoid unnecessary tapping on the keyboard and pointless waste of time (sudo, etc.).
Recent
