[Gllug] Installing Linux software (Part II)

[Bruce Richardson]

On 12/12/01, 4:53:42 PM, James.Rocks at equant.com wrote regarding Re: 
[Gllug] Installing Linux software (Part II):

> So can anyone tell me why it is that Linux installations are built this 
way
> ... I mean what is the advantage over a single package installation 
(which
> some Linux packages appear to be)? Perhaps it is to confer a modular type
> design on the OS (which in my opinion is inadequate since the packages 
seem
> to often ask for specific versions of modules and, as I understand it,
> modularity is more about keep I/F's the same whist where possible whilst
> improving a given module.

> I can see that the way that Windows installations sometimes blindly
> overwrite DLL's etc. can cause problems (though apparently W2K monitors &
> corrects for this, presumably XP does too) ... I can testify to that from
> several years (fortunately a while ago) of HelpDesk experience.

You've only encountered the downside of package management (and Gnome is 
not a good introduction as the gnome packaging/dependency heirarchy is 
generally regarded as a right mess).

Firstly, rpm is a superior tool to the Windows Installer.  Your system is 
genuinely componentised (if that is a real word).  You can use the 
packaging system to upgrade any individual component of the system and 
can easily go back to your original state if you need to.  You can 
identify precisely which component a particular file belongs to, and 
check current permissions/checksums against the original state of the 
package if you think you have messed things up.  You can create your own 
tweaked variants of standard rpms without having to know anything about C 
programming (or anything else bar how to edit a text file).

Secondly, the upgrade/dependency problems you are having do have an 
anser: apt.  OK, apt isn't available for your current distribution but 
several similar solutions are in active development.  Swap distros or try 
out one of the rpm-plus solutions.

> I figure the complex & confusing nature of Linux installations (whilst
> argubly historical) has remained that way for some reason more than "we
> never got round to it" :-)

No.  It's more complex than what you are used to but far less chaotic.  
It's just that steep learning curve again.

Maintaining Windows is simpler - chuck in the service pack, hope it 
doesn't bugger anything too badly, resign yourself to a reinstall if it 
does - but it's simply chaotic, inflexible and underpowered.

Once you know what you are doing you will be able to use rpm to do things 
you would never even have considered attempting with Windows.  Even with 
the tools you have available to you right now you could (given the 
knowledge) create a push and/or pull network installation/upgrade system 
that puts any Windows system to shame.

Even with Windows 2000/XP, almost any change you care to make on a 
network (outside of the simplest policy changes) involves a tiresome 
trudge to each machine.  Set your Linux boxes up properly and you never 
have to visit them again (unless there's a hardware failure).

-- 

Bruce

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug