Hmm.. I need to read up on Zero Install to understand that, I think..
What I like about Autopackage is that it's the closest thing toward
effectively forming a united GNU/Linux software platform. Having to hope my
current version of my particular distribution's package repository has the
particular version of the app I want is just a very bad... highly annoying
thing for me. And I think it is the #1 inhibiting factor of broader
adoption of GNU/Linux as a personal OS: first, there'd be more software for
everybody--both FOSS and proprietary apps; second, life would be much easier
for the average user for not only having access to more software but for
being able to use it, too; and third, stores could be more willing to sell
GNU/Linux based hardware not having to worry about software availability or
support problems resulting from the lack of the same.
What I think autopackage is missing for this vision to come true are the
following (understanding not everyone agrees with me on multiple points):
(1) Building a central repository is a good idea, given certain conditions.
This would help build up critical mass, increasing the exposure, popularity,
and marketability of autopackage's goals.
a. If the software maintainer is unwilling to maintain his/her/its' own
autopackage then it's a good thing to try and find a surrogate maintainer
until that person can be convinced to do it his/her/its' self.
b. A surrogate maintained autopackage might act as a handy starting point
for the proper maintainer to take over from or at least learn from in order
to make a proper one.
c. A central repository could provide a helpful infrastructure for
project maintainers to maintain a project within and also for users to seek
out and compare application packages.
(2) My own view about most open source software applications is that they
are seldom (if ever) complete products. I think it's a fine idea for
someone else to build a solution based off of a typical existing open source
applications.. e.g. Open Office with books, video tutorials, and a on-line
support account, etc.
Matthew
Post by Isak SavoPost by Pablo GarraldaHi everybody,
Reading Autopackage F.A.Q. I've just found a link to "Zero
Install" which it seems to have an approach similar to Autopackage. In
its
Post by Pablo Garraldasite, there is a table comparing several options, including Zero install
and
Post by Pablo GarraldaAutopackage among others. Of course, According to its page, Zero Install
rocks. ;)
Does anybody know the advantages of Autopackage over Zero
Install? Better portability, perhaps? Or its just a different approach?
Different approaches to the same problem basically. Zero install tries
to remove (or reduce) this whole "i need to install an application
before I can use it" mantra that has been around since the operating
system was invented.
Autopackage tries to solve the limitations of centralized software
distribution that exist in the linux world, allowing more of windows
.msi/setup.exe way of installing apps.
That's the fundamental differences IMO.
-Isak
---------------------------------------------------------------------