Talk:Zero-install

message: "This is in contrast to it's claim that most of it's packages are simple conversions from rpm/deb (if that were the case, and it was better, why hasn't someone done the conversion for Ubuntu/Fedora)?"
I really don't see how the above is logically valid (nobody did it -> it doesn't work the way it's claimed), and I really, really don't think it's an appropriate remark for an encyclopedia article, especially the stuff in parenthesis.
LjL (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It claims it can do XYZ, XYZ has never been done, but pointing that out is not "an appropriate remark for an encyclopedia article". If it claimed it could do perpetual motion should we just reprint that too? James Antill (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

text: James, as a YUM developer (http://illiterat.livejournal.com/5043.html) your thoughts on software installation are very interesting, but perhaps the Zero Install mailing list would be a better place to discuss any problems you have using Zero Install to install RPMs? BTW, were did you find the "most of it's packages are simple conversions from rpm/deb" claim? I picked six packages at random from the list at http://0install.net/injector-feeds.html,  and only two were programs available in Debian, Ubuntu or Fedora's native package databases, so I suspect this is not true. Talex (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason I thought zero-install claimed that it _could_ operate well on rpm/deb packages after a simple conversion ... maybe I misread one of your posts to lsb-packaging on deb2zero. But I can't find it now, and I assume it's because noone actually said that. Sorry. James Antill (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Feel free to mail me directly, if you want my opinions or whatever, but joining the mailing list seems like it'd be more likely to cause a giant flamewar than anything else. James Antill (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think you can do anything useful with any installer "without creating your own packages or finding ones that people have done". Installing third-party packages is the main point of Zero Install, so even if Fedora aren't publishing any packages themselves, this isn't really a problem. For example, having got Zero Install from Fedora, you can then install the whole of the ROX desktop, even though Fedora don't package most of it themselves. You will get updates (both to Zero Install, from Fedora, and to ROX, through Zero Install). talex 12:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure how your found the "recent ones", but the news feed on the main mirror site (http://roscidus.com/0mirror/) shows that YoFrankie and CELstart would have been the most recent on the day you posted your comment, both being released on that day. Before that, GTK and friends were updated on 25th Jan. Note that since multiple versions of libraries can co-exist, older packages can remain viable and usable much longer than with RPM, etc (though this depends on how many of their dependencies come through Zero Install, of course). talex 12:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: To be honest, I'm pretty confused by your (James') comments above and edits. You seem to imagine it's designed to do something completely different to what it is actually for, and then point out that it doesn't do any of these things. This probably indicates that the page needs rewriting. Perhaps based on the text at http://0install.net, since that actually makes sense?
My suggestions:
* Drop talk of the lazyfs kernel module and daemon process. This is ancient history and of no interest to anyone.
* Since it works in addition to an existing package manager, having a small number of packages can't be a "disadvantage" (unless a disadvantage of a PDF reader is that there are not many PDF files around, for example). Disadvantage compared to what?
* "system locations writeable by the user" is also misleading. The shared cache is NOT writeable by users (otherwise one user could modify software another user was running!). See http://0install.net/sharing.html
The important points, in my option, are:
* As a user, I can run software that my distribution doesn't package. For example, a ROX user on a Fedora system can get their preferred desktop environment without difficultly, and still get the benefits of automatic updates, digital signatures and sharing between users, even though Fedora didn't provide packages for it. If I move to a Slackware system, I can still run the same software, even if there are no Slackware packages either.
* As a software author, I can make a release of my program with one command (e.g. http://0install.net/0release.html) that works on every Linux distribution, and have people test it right away (if they've selected the option to run "testing" rather than "stable" versions). I can start getting and acting on bug reports immediately, not six months later when the package makes it into the distribution's repository (by which time bug reports are largely useless).
* Side-effect-free installation removes the possibility of package conflicts, allows atomic upgrades, allows unprivileged users to install software, and opens the way to possible future benefits for running programs with restricted security permissions (e.g. you can't write an SELinux policy that allows safe installation of arbitrary RPMs, even in theory). With side-effect-free installation, you only need to write a security policy for the running of software, which is possible in many cases (though not trivial; it is an interesting research topic).
* If software installation no longer requires root access, there is less need for everyone to have sudo rights on a system.
Some obvious disadvantages:
* It is a very different and unfamiliar way to manage software (though not so different to the way the web works).
* Some programs may need major modifications. For example, adding one user command takes one user action, so a package that installs many commands into $PATH will cause trouble. For example, a program couldn't install commands called "git-add", "git-commit", "git-remote", etc; it would have to be changed to have a single executable with sub-commands, such as "git add", "git commit", "git remote", etc.
* It is unclear how uninstallation should be handled. Should software expire from the cache? Should the admin remove it? Should it go when no user wants it anymore?
Talex (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed? 

message: the reason why 0install has 0 popularity is obvious:
it no longer is written in python and is impossible to build, deploy or use by mere mortals.
It makes 0sense.
--yy 02:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  0popular