Ubuntu, as you may already know, is based on Debian GNU/Linux which means that it uses dpkg and apt to manage installed software. Their developers do a great job to provide binary packages for almost every program out there. These packages can be installed really quickly (if you have a broadband Internet connection) and they automatically configure themselves to work flawlessly in your system, including any dependencies they may need.
On the easiness side, Ubuntu provides the Add/Remove Applications utility and the Synaptic package manager, both of which are great interfaces to the apt packaging system. The former shows a simple list of programs that can be installed while the latter lets you manage your software on a package basis. After enabling the Universe and Multiverse repositories from Synaptic, you can quickly search for and install any piece of software you can imagine, including a few commercial applications. Installation is then trivial because apt takes care of downloading and installing the software.Given that the software is packaged explicitly for Ubuntu (or Debian), each package morphs into the system seamlessly, placing each file (binaries, documentation, libraries, etc.) where it belongs. On a somewhat related note, the problem of rebuilding kernels and/or drivers is mostly gone: the default kernel comes very modularized and some proprietary drivers are ready to be installed from the repository (such as the NVIDIA one).
Unfortunately, you are screwed if some application you want to install is not explicitly packaged for the system (not only it needs to be compiled for Linux; it needs to be "Ubuntu-aware"). These applications are on their own in providing an installer and instructions on how to use them, not to mention that they may not work at all in the system due to ABI problems. I installed the Linux version of Doom 3 yesterday and I can't conceive an end user following the process. The same goes for, e.g., JRE/JDK versions prior to 1.5, which are not packaged due to license restrictions (as far as I know). We will talk some more about this in a future post when we compare the development platform of each system.
Mac OS X has a radically different approach to software distribution and installation. An applicaction is presented to the user as a single object that can be moved around the system and work from anywhere. (These objects are really directories with the application files in them, but the user will not be aware of this.) Therefore the most common way to distribute software is through disk images that contain these objects in them. To install the application you just drag it to the Applications folder; that's all. (Some people argue that this is counterintuitive but it's very convenient.) These bundles often include all required dependencies too, which avoids trouble to the end user.
Other applications may include custom (graphical!) installers, although all of them behave similarly (much like what happens under Windows). At last, some other programs may be distributed in the form of "mpkg"s which can be processed through a common installer built into the system; all the user has to do is double click on them. No matter what method is used by a specific program, its installation is often trivial: no need to resort to the command line nor do any specific changes by hand.As you can see both systems are very different when it comes to software installation. If all the software you need is on the Ubuntu repositories, it probably beats Mac OS X in this area. But this won't always be the case, specially for commercial software, and in those situations it can be much worse than any other system. I'm not sure which method I like most; each one has its own pros and cons as described above.
5 comments:
I'm on the user side when you say -and I agree- that is easier to drag ONE item to an apps folder (or wherever) than to guess where are all the files get installed. The user just wants to "use" the app, instead of beeing careful on what "system folders" she shouldn't delete (windows way) and such..
The OS X method is very nice when applications actually support it. Just to get a base install with the not-so-uncommon apps that I use, I end up installing several apps in OS X that run installers. This reminds me of Windows.
On the other hand I believe Ubuntu has over 20k apps in its repositories right now (if you enable all of them). This includes almost every linux app worth installing. Like you said, there are exceptions, but both OS's have their exceptions. I've just seen more in OS X.
With commercial software you just add the relevant repository. For example picasa for Linux. Once you get your head around the process it makes life SOO much easier.
The Mac OS X process feels clunky and messy. (The files listed in your download manager, the files wherever you downloaded them etc..) To be honest I am not as experienced with Mac OS X as I am with Ubuntu but I am sure which one I prefer. I think apple should release a synaptic clone or something similar
What about Fink and Darwinports? You can use Mac OS X entirely like a Unix/Linux machine by installing X11. You can install DarwinPorts or Fink which have many packages just like the Ubuntu repositories have.
For example, in ubuntu you would do (to install gnuplot),
'sudo apt-get install gnuplot'
and you can do the same thing in mac:
sudo apt-get -f install gnuplot
or sudo port install gnuplot
Even though the Ubuntu community deserves appreciation for catering their programs in binaries, its still far away from the desired solution.
There are just too many linux flavors and none of them use an package management systems as standard. Its like different people using different system of units.
But, in a Mac, I can download a software in .dmg and keep it. I can backup these setup files during a format. But in Linux, you've to go to the internet for installing programs. The .deb thingy is cool but not as convenient as .dmg files.
Linux has no clear future in these aspects. Its doomed to fail. Without commercial software, a platform won't sustain itself. But, a commercial deployment is IMPOSSIBLE in Linux. Damnit.
Post a Comment