(08-08-2012, 01:56 AM)soratidus999 Wrote: [ -> ]its a never ending cycle
people dont develop for linux, people dont use linux (basic users i mean), people dont really develop an easy way to develop for linux
admittedly im making many generalisations, i have a mac, an ubuntu "server" and a win7 machine running next to eachother at my desk....
-- also without looking at 0install, your generalisation of because its cross platform its better is extremely ignorant... by my experience doing many things means its not as good at each individual aspect, i wouldnt ask PC users to suffer with a substandard piece of software just to give linux users a chance, thats just kicking the can further down the street
(im no expert, just a experienced computerer making generalisations)
That's why I'm asking these questions, because I don't understand why devs aren't interested in cross-distro solutions.
As for me saying ZI is better than existing managers, I'm simply saying Linux users being able to install programs directly from developers regardless of their distro is a form of freedom and is an extremely important feature, in my opinion one of the most important ones. So far, ZI is the only easy, real solution I have seen. If you know of a better one, chime in! Software access is the difference between freedom and being inprisoned, because the entire point of a computer is to use programs.
Thus, an OS that makes that difficult isn't a OS that puts freedom first. I couldn't even get PCSX2 running on Linux after trying for a while, and it makes me feel like switching over to my Windows install just for the ease of installation, and I'm using the most mainstream Linux distro there is, Ubuntu 12.04. Ease of use is something devs care about for the Windows version, so they should care about it with Linux versions as well. If they try to claim it's because of a lack of standards, they need to switch to something that
is standardized, or include the libraries that are constantly changing and breaking things inside the download package, or they need to find a system of rolling out software so users can always get the parts they need, like Zero Install.
Quite simply, Linux needs to be easy to use, so the Linux version being advertised for PCSX2 as being awesome and running well etc isn't helping to give Linux a good image when the normal user has no chance with the Linux version. I'm simply offering a possible solution and asking why not.
(08-08-2012, 03:19 AM)jesalvein Wrote: [ -> ]All of this sound like a good idea...
When do you plan to provide such a system ?
Can we expect any release date ?
That's not the point of this thread. I'm asking the devs here why this isn't being done, why they are going half of the way towards Linux releases and not all the way. Why don't you release a ZI version? I can be snarky too.
I couldn't even get the thing compiled and running anyway because of stupid differing package names and other retarded problems that I wouldn't wish on anyone. So, I'm far from being able to package a version with included libraries or creating ZI packages for the required library versions and having them each in separate packages all dependant on one another.
Here's Windows and Mac: Download, install, run.
Here's Linux: Get redirected to confusing FAQ page, try to read through and understand FAQ page, download and attempt to run recommended package, try to figure out library package names to install all the missing dependancies, bang head against desk and wish you weren't running Linux, realize that Linux and freedom is important enough to try to improve things, come to forums to ask why it's so difficult and why devs don't release an easier package.
Gee, I wonder why it's not the year of the Linux desktop yet???
P.S. The reason distros aren't interested in cross-distro solutions is because they each want their own OS X with their own Apple Stores (Ubuntu Software Center), each locked into their own walled garden. Go Linux freedom!