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

Btw.
Here is some critique about application installation in linux
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul3.html

.edit
Oh dear looks like he had problems that I have not had for couple of years. Maybe something to do with 2004 year but who knows. 7-10 years ago I had similiar problems nowdays most of distroes go pretty well to my machines.

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

You can definitely change the install path. I'll give you a small example of what I did. I didn't want another daemon running, so I extracted qwerty12's headset-control deb package and copied the headset-control binary into my external sdcard (ext3 partitioned). So now, whenever I want to run the binary, I simply open xterm, cd to my sdcard and run ./headset-control. Works like a charm! See, application 'installed' to the path of my choosing. I also store some small bash scripts and c progs that I have created here, and execute them the same way.

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

@non_reading_non_investigating_but_oh_so_intereste d_thread_participants...

If you would have used google, preferably with the right operators, you would have been able to figure out the way you can install programs where you want them installed. This does come at a price, however, and considering the way people are dealing here with the information provided, I would not, repeat not recommend you to do this, but if you insist, download the source, rather than the package.

From that point on, you can use
Of course, provided you have or know how to gain the rights to write to that location.

If you don't like this, I can only advise you to stop complaining about why only balls can roll or make your cube roll by sheer will power...

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

Of course you can. But on the occasion that you need to install something and you don't have enough disk space, it would be nice to have an option. I have resorted to wget the package and manually unpacked it, and stuff like that, but it's not something I enjoy doing. Especially when I'm in a hurry.

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

you are 110% free to recompile apps and make the installer install files anywhere you want. so what gives?

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

Don't most package managers allow you to install to different folders?

RPM:
rpm --prefix=/home/chroot/ bind-chroot*.rpm

or use the --root command-line option to install *.deb to a different folder.

Bearing in mind that most software packages look in "/etc" for configuration - ou would have to symbollicly link the config file.

Also by having everything in one place means that writing scripts to find stuff is easier or physically checking a program "exists" via a script is easier too.

I've used Windows since the very first version and when Microsoft decided to put configuration into a "registry" it means:
(1) you need specfic tools to change entries - with linux a simple text editor will suffice
(2) a single point of failure - its easy to trash the registry and stop many of your installed programs from working properly

I prefer the Linux way of doing things: one central place to install stuff with known standards and each program is responsible for it's own configuration file.

Thats the beauty of it - you are free to choose the method appropriate for you.

You can even slice and dice your Linux partition - your "home" folder can have it's own partition even "usr" - it's up to you.

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

Ha ha ha.

And what does this "install here" actually mean?
You end up with
DLL files in WINDOWS/SYSTEM32
links and files in C:\Documents and Settings
some in C:\Users\Default\Local Settings
and in C:\Documents and Settings\<user>\Local Settings\Application
and some of this files and directories are hidden system folders.


nicolai

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

That's mostly meant for distribution installation or recovery (when your active root fs isn't the same as the root fs of the distribution you're maintaining). It isn't that great for instaliing a package to arbitrary locations and expecting it to work without lots of manual fiddling afterwards.

RPM also supports the notion of "relocatable packages" which can do what the OP wants (provided the packager spent a little bit of extra effort to make the packages relocatable), but that's not going to help until "real" MeeGo comes along at least.

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

I think that the package system , no matter it is deb or rpm , is good for open source system. It has minimized the space required , and it can get software easily.

Setup an new Ubuntu system is a pretty simple task , whatever you found that a software is not installed , you can open synaptic and search for the download. You won't need to find it from Google, from different site.

However, it has its disadvantage , you can not enjoy the newest software , you need to wait until the package manager is free to pack the software for you. For example , Firefox , you may need to wait for few days to weeks for newest version.

But I don't like windows installer , I think mac's dmg is more flexible solution of software installation. And such solution is already available on Linux:

http://www.elementary-project.com/wi...itle=AppImages

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

What happens if you format the c:\ drive?