Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

You are in luck!
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/11/w...-launch-guide/

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

It's called a PPA. You can usually find them for whatever package you want, and all it is is a small repo for whatever package or set of packages you want.
Want the absolute latest Firefox package? https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozill...y/+archive/ppa <- Just use that. You'll have up-to-the-day updates, but the trade-off is that your using untested, nightly software.
If you are using a "stable" repo, like setup by default, then things are pre-tested for you, and generally won't screw up your system or have major bugs. On the other hand, running from devel, testing or nightly repositories can cause problems.

What a lot of people don't seem to get - You included - Is that there is generally a good *reason* for doing something one way. It may not seem the best to you, but you aren't developing an OS either. The people who generally decide these things have way more experience with such things than you or I - Trying to second-guess such knowledge isn't a good idea.


edit:
@TiagoTiago:
I think you are forgetting a lot. If it was as good as you say, you could take whatever DIR you installed to, copy it to a new Windows machine, and it would work. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way with -most- programs. Some(that is, programs designed for Linux and ported to Windows), however will copy fine.

And that's not even taking into account draconian copy-protection measures like Photoshop frigging writing to your MBR!

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

I have my own PPA account , I offer package for my OSS software , and backport package , for example , Qt for Hardy. Although I am not a Debian developer , I have made Debian package for many years. I use Debian SID for my desktop , it is changed to Ubuntu few month ago. And my day time job is about embedded Linux product, that may include u-boot , kernel porting.

yes , I am not developing OS , but I don't think I am a layman user of Linux. I just want to express my opinion toward the package system.

Moreover , I am not saying that package system is not good , but it is not prefect. An addition way of software installation is not a bad idea too.

I have a Mac book pro , it is used for my day time job. Their DMG is really a simple software installation method . However, Mac OS still have its own package system , mpkg . System software and library installation usually use this format. It just like deb / rpm , but the feature is much poor.

DMG is for application software installation ,and mpkg is for system tool . User normally won't need to deal with any dependency issue , installation just means to drop the file to Application folder. Why can't we consider this additional installation method? And restrict ourself to a single way? Just becoz we are not developing OS?

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

If the package manager keeps track of where things are installed, any program that would need to know if a given program is installed and where would just check the place where the package manager stores that information.


Regarding DLLs in Windows, in the rare cases i need a program to use an specific DLL instead of the one present in PATH i just put a copy of the DLL in question in the same folder as the executable, and in several instances i've updated a DLL because of one program, and didn't even had to do any tricks to keep other programs working, the newer version of the DLL remained compatible (perhaps nowadays developers are more carefull when releasing newer version of their DLLs? Or perhaps i've just been lucky all these years...)


Many programs in Windows do offer the option of keeping it all in a single folder, for those that don't i can just install them inside Sandboxie on a pendrive or whatever.



Regardless of the OS, i consider it much more tidy to keep things that are only for a given program instead of being shared be under a single folder than spread all over; ideally configuration files would all have the same extension so if i ever needed to find them all it would be just a matter of running a search. If i even need to backup things from a program i often just copy the install folder, and then i transfer whatever files back if after a reinstall they aren't kept (even better when the program divides it's files in subfolders according to what they are about). Another nice thing with this approach is there is no risk of name conflicts, all programs can have their own "config.ini" without needing to prepend their own names and versions making filenames long and annoying to read.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Well, it seems to me that the whole point of Linux packages is that everything is modular. You don't need to install all of, say, QT if you only need bits from one or two modules. Sure, it means that manually installing packages means installing dependencies as well, but the whole idea is to do it automaticly.
The advantage is you don't have much - if any - duplicated libraries or data. You have one copy, and its used by many things. This may not be very important on a Desktop or laptop where you have hundreds of GB to play with, but consider that on the N900 we only have 2.25GB -TOTAL- OS space, and the core sits in less than 256MB.

Also - ignoring dependency issues - on my Ubuntu desktop, there was a nice little DPKG-frontend that would let me double-click on a package and install it. No command-line, no nothing. It would even install dependencies, provided they were available.
Personally, I think deb packages are a great idea. Sure, there may be some issues repo-side; having people upgrade to the right versions etc... But those can be dealt with. And its better than Windows installation, for sure.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

cause u don't have separete hard drives like in windows (c: d: e.g.) and u can make any folder as separete hdd, so it's pointless in linux. what's the point on having something in other folder and having extra files (symlinks) ?

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

If package makers do it wrong, shared libraries etc don't go where other programs expect to find them might endup duplicated, right? Same thing in Windows.

I like the dependencies stuff, checking if other programs are using stuff before uninstalling etc. But dumping all executables on one folder, all configuration files on another folder etc makes quite a mess, the other day i wasted a lot of time scrolling trying to find the executable for an specific program.....


IMO it makes much more sense to keep each thing in it's own folder, and if necessary add stuff to a list, symlink it or whatever to make other programs find it, or like i said, if the package manager is already keeping tabs of what is where, take advantage of that and read that data if you wanna know if a program is installed and where; relying on hardcoded paths is laziness...

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Robbie,

great, I have two common consensus with you. "Deb packages are a great idea!" and "And its better than Windows installation , for sure"

well , my point of view is not only on N900 , but also talk about desktop Linux (As the thread is also talking about Windows desktop) . You may ignore AppImage if you want to talk N900 only.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Dude (or -ette), you need to stick with windows, because that is what you apparently know alot about. There is no point in having a philosophical debate about the difference inherent in Linux and Windows. Obviously, you prefer Mr. Softy's filesystem solution...I prefer *nix filesystem. There are pros and cons to each....choose one that is right for you and don't expect your Linux phone to behave like a windows phone....caveat emptor.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

dpkg -L <packagename>

shows you what and where are the files from this packages.

What I meant is, even if you can select an install directory, you can not
be sure that no other files are installed somewhere else. Setting-/
configurationfiles, links for the programmenu, tempory application folders
are often stored in the windows or root directory and/or the users
directory.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Well.. this will not work on all windows programs.. often you need to copy the register to be able to backup a program that way. Normally it is just easier to set up the program again than back it up.

A format on Windows often means doing everything from scratch.. or it will make the system unstable. When i used windows before.. i formated about once every 6 month cause it got to slow.

For me it takes about 1-2 hour to set up an Ubuntu system as i like it.. last time i flashed my n900 it took 30 minutes... for Windows it takes a day.. sometimes a couple of days cause of the things you missed to setup or install. (i am no windows user any longer but i help others)

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

My whole life i only had one partition per physical hard disk, only started doing multiple partitions when i got into linux, swap partition, root partition, documents parition etc (hasn't run all that smoothly, lots of getting used to, and lots of things just plain worksome to achieve; though some out of the PC stuff kinda got in the way too)

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

@TiagoTiago

Well... It's nice that you seem to have your own elaborated thoughts about the file structure Unix is using (Unix, yes, as the hierarchy is still more or less the same). It is nice to know that we have some knowledgeable people around that will, without the slightest doubt, help shape the future of Linux and Windows alike... We will be happy to learn from you.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Yeah.. that is true. When coming from another system there is a lerning curve. Pretty much everybody goes through this stadium. But that doesn't mean the old one you are familiar with is better.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

You can specify the folder where to install by passing dpkg the --instdir=<directory> option when instaling. But don't expect to be this a very good idea because of many reasons...

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

I run Debian Squeeze (x64) as my Desktop OS. I've run Ubuntu-based systems for the last year, switching to Debian itself about a month ago.
And, as you can probably tell, I'm happy with it. I really like Debian-style installation, vs Windows-style.

When I want to install a bunch of software, instead of opening a webbrowser, going to ten or more websites, downloading software and installing each piece separately, I just open a terminal and type "sudo apt-get install X Y Z W A B C", hit Y when asked, and go do something else as it downloads. No fuss, no muss, it just works.

And even when I end up finding a piece of software that requires manual installation and compiling, it generally takes about as long(or less) than the equivalent Windows installation would take.

Yet, the whole best part is that, no matter how much software I install, it doesn't slow down my system. There's no registry to get crufty, and most software doesn't start automatically on bootup.
Now, while this is more a matter of the program writers, its still a factor when comparing Linux(any flavor) to Windows installation.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

It's not the filesystem's fault, the question here is how you use it. Most of the customs of *nix users in regards to usage of storage could be recreated in NTFS running Windows, and much of what happens in Windows with files and folders can also be done with ext* and company with a Linux kernel under the hood; it's all a matter of how programmers decide to make their programs act. I bet that if you just do a raw port, just converting calls etc to the corresponding, several Windows programs will install in a linux system creating a "Program Files" folder and it's own subfolder inside that, and if the port is done correctly, it will run from there; i got lots of programs on my Windows machine that originally came from Linux that fill my userprofile root folder ( %UserProfile% aka %HOMEPATH%) with dot-prefixed folders instead of using %AppData%, though they pollute the folder tree with misguided entries, they run just fine.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Still don't get what the issue is. dpkg --instdir will put stuff whereever you want it (but then it's your problem if a system service doesn't find it or a part of it, obviously)

Again, it seems that you aversion stems from how you use your apps - the convention of putting all executables in bin is because that's what's in path and that's what you'll see when you use it from a command line. When you click around, a graphical (hierarchical) layout is preferred, and most desktop environments do just that - they put stuff in /bin to keep compatibility and put shortcuts/link into the menu entries - everybody happy.

FWIW MeeGo uses something very similar in layout to what you propose so looks a lot less like a traditional linux (it puts the apps into their respective /opt/namespace/... so nobody touches /usr/bin et al)

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Most of this discussion can be summed-up as:

Windows is not Linux. Linux is not Windows.

Windows does its own thing and Linux does its own thing too.

I certainly would not expect them to adopt each other's filesystem strategy - they are both perfectly fine as they are.

There are pros and cons with each system. Either choose one or use both it's your choice but don't enforce one system's filesystem on another.

For the record I use both Windows and Linux in my daily life and quite happy with it.

Diversity is a "Good Thing"(tm).

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

For backing up/formatting.

Normally on a linux system you look in "/home/user/.<program>/".. seldom you need to go to another folder. To install and uninstall you could use synaptic package manager to check or uncheck the programs you like.

on a windows system you normally look in "/program files/" but pretty often you need to look in "/system/" or "/system32/" or "/My Documents/" or "/user/application data/" or on "c:\" or on "d:\"... e.t.c. and then you need to go to the registry sometimes and change some settings there. If you clogged the system you need to format and all your settings are gone making it paintful to setup again. Looking fo drivers on the internet.. e.t.c.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

It would save some trouble without preventing the "recommended" behavior from being the default, if the normal install process offered an option of installing into a different folder (even better if it also offered an option, also present in the program's preferences) for keeping settings in the same folder)

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

That is only with well behaved Linux programs and poorly behaved Windows programs (both seems to be the most common on their respective OSes)

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

No this apply on pretty much all linux programs.. could differ little depending on what system you use.

Also applies on most windows systems i had a look in. Different programs doing different things. Although some programs like notepad and such are pretty much no problem.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

There is nothing that forces Windows programs to not clean after themselves when you uninstall them thru normal means; and nothing forcing Linux programs to not leave trash behind; it's all a matter of how they (and the uninstall methods of choice) were made.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

True, but i am not just talking about how to clean up after a program.. both systems needs a format once in awhile. Although i had to format my winXP install aprox every six month.. i still do it with Ubuntu. Not cause the system cloggs up (cause it doesn't) but cause to the ubuntu release cycle. Although i could use the OTA upgrade i like a fresh system. i just reinstall the programs.. all the settings and stuff are still there.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Heh, this WinXP install has survived past 4-5 HDDs (one or two of them had errors the repair shop couldn't fix that i managed to myself) and several years so far , and this with hard use, almost 24/7 intended up time (i don't shut down when i go sleep or leave the house, but eventually it might crash when i'm not paying attention, or the light might go out), with porn browsing in unknown sites, downloading and running of cracks and keygens etc and countless programs from all sorts of sources :P

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Funny that this heated debate happens just today, as last night I posted a rant in my blog on a very similar subject, but from a different angle : in specific cases, why not just NO installer... and NO package ?

See: http://fredp.lautre.net/blog/2010/10...ot-to-package/

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

How did you move it from one HDD to another? And you are lying if you say that your install is as fast now as it was in the begining. All windows install get cloggy and slow. Even my fathers install got slow over time and he mostly just surf the net. He don't have that problem any longer cause i installed Ubuntu for him.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Clonned thru varied means over the ages.

It indeed doesn't flow as smooth as as a fresh install in a blank disk, but the performance difference isn't worth reinstalling and setting up all the ****, also, it would be hell to backup all the stuff i saved all over the place back when i wasn't thinking about ever needing to backup stuff; and probably by the time i had everything back it would perform pretty much as it does now.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

Which where my point... If you had used "the linux way".. you probably would just need an hour or so to install your progs.. no pain at all.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

That would have involved me saving my files always in a separated folder, which wouldn't have been the case regardless of the OS, the way i used to save things back then (still a little now) today i would have one of the most poluted linux hard disks ever, and considering my track record with choice and usage of programs, i would probably have lots of programs that didn't keep things tidy themselves either

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

That is why you keep your /home folder in a separate partition!

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

didn't another person here said that using partitions instead of keeping everything in a single thing was a Windows user thing?

Wouldn't have helped much, lots of things got saved right where they were, either because the program defaulted to saving int he install folder, or because i was creating the file in some unusual way.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

I like creating files by standing on my head, opening the hard drive up and scribing the platter by hand with a magnetised stylus.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

That would probably never have happend on a linux system. Why install a program in /etc/ when it choses correct path for you?

I mentioned partition as in.. making the partition for programs bigger on the n900. On a normal Linux system you don't have to bother about this. My Ubuntu machine uses 6Gb of a 10Gb root partition. The rest of the HDD goes to my /home/ partition.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

I don't think we can install all apps in the respiratory (assuming it will need more than 2gb of space)! So we will need that install here option in such case, don't we? Its alway better to have option than none. I've gone through first three pages only, so if its been mentioned/answered somewhere, sorry!

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

If you need more space for programs.. why not just make that partition larger. I made it 10Gb once.. but didn't need it so have reverted back to the stock size.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

yes that would be better but with mobile devices one must make compromises and you can repartition the 32gb storage completely freely if 2gb isn't enough. imo easier than making sure that installing apps doesn't break anything etc.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

@ TiagoTiago,

I too prefer WIndows over Linux. Sure Linux has some cool abilities and some things are nicer, but my gosh its just so much more JOYFUL to use Windows.

That said Windows has some faults too.

So I've been spending some time over at OS Dev making my own. Check it out.

Re: "Install here" : why Linux doesn't do it?
 

You are blatantly wrong - it is about entries in 'PATH'.

And one thing is difficult to underestimate - experience. You know much more about Linux and applications internals because it is not covered by package manager.

But I would like stop argument + and -.