|
|
|
|
|
|
by surrealize
5233 days ago
|
|
|
Part of the rationale for package management with dependencies in linux is so that libraries are shared (only loaded into memory once) between different executables. If OS X is giving up some of that sharing in exchange for simpler installation, I wonder how much that has to do with the memory usage complaints in the comments here. |
|
|
I don't really see how OS X has 'simpler' installation than any well-structured Linux distro. What could be simpler than typing pacman -S <packagename> or apt-get install <packagename>, using a single, built-in package manager that automatically fetches, builds, (possibly) compiles, and installs all dependencies at the same time?
Even if you're terrified of the command line, it's not like you can't build a GUI that makes that process look more appealing.
And please don't try and tell me that brew or macports are replacements - they're not. They're ersatz substitutes that do a passable job of installing some (but not all) development packages and basic applications. They don't manage system libraries, and they don't manage many applications that have to be installed from the App Store or from .dmg files. That's not one system - that's three or four, and they don't all play nice with each other.
In the time it took me to write this comment, I was able to upgrade all of my installed applications, system libraries, python modules, and absolutely everything else - all in one go.
Command-line or not, I can't see how one can argue OS X has 'simple' installation on any dimension, compared to (most) Linux distros.