I've used Linux for a long time and it used to be crap in this way. It's something that certain distributions took it upon themselves to produce. And it works well - when the software you want is in the repository.

When what you want isn't in a repository or you want a newer version than the repository has is where you hit problems. The Mac and Windows tend to get around this problem by having a decently stable set of libraries that programs work with. With Linux, because everyone is free to have or not have anything, programs can't count on what may or may not be installed or what version it might be. And if one were to upgrade one library, it might cause incompatibilities with certain programs and if one were to install a newer version of a program it might depend on that newer version of that library. Many Linux distros get around this by not upgrading packages in repositories beyond critical fixes for a released version. And that does bug a lot of people. It's one of the reasons new Linux distros are released so frequently - an upgrade of the OS is also an upgrade of the programs you're running on it.

And part of this is that Linux is progressing rapidly. We don't want a stable set of stuff because we couldn't improve as quickly that way.

But it's a little bit brusk to say that Linux is just superior because it has centralized application management. It's both a positive and a negative. And, to an extent, it's a solution to a problem that the Mac and Windows don't have - that programs can't count on what's going to be on a given system or what version.

It's cool. It makes some things easy and nice. It isn't some magically amazing thing that always works in your favor.

"When what you want isn't in a repository or you want a newer version than the repository has is where you hit problems."

You have an excellent point there. A recent example is that it took FREAKING forever before Firefox 3.5 was in the Ubuntu repositories, and it's still only in Jaunty. If you're running an older version (like Intrepid or Hardy) then there is no simple way to run 3.5. Seriously???? I need to upgrade my entire OS to upgrade my browser? WTF!

You can of course install from source.. That's easy enough for most of us here on HN, but not exactly end user friendly.

IMHO part of the reason package repositories for Linux distro's don't work as well as something like the iPhone App Store or the Android Market is that they're to fragmented. Even for a major open source project like Mozilla, getting your latest release into every major version of every major distro's repositories is a pretty major undertaking. Not to mention of course that the iPhone App Store and the Android market allow for both open source and commercial software.

"But it's a little bit brusk to say that Linux is just superior because it has centralized application management"

I know. I tend to exaggerate a little from time to time (and that not everyone likes it), but I always try to make it engaging or, at least, entertaining. When I saw two different important software vendors embracing the idea of software package repositories, it came to me the idea is taking hold. My iPod self-updates apps installed in it. It is not as sophisticated as APT or YUM, but it's an idea whose time has come.

It's interesting. My wife has recently started using linux on a regular basis, and this is what she hates about it. She doesn't "get" it.

For one thing, the package manager has horrible descriptions for the stuff being installed. "core libraries and binaries for all KDE applications" might make sense to us, but she doesn't know what that means at all.

For another, she's used to going somewhere to get an application to install it. Forget apt-get, forget launching a package manager, why can't she just go to the website (ie: google earth), download the executable, and run it? Why does linux have to make things so different and hard?

Lastly, there are more updates coming from the Ubuntu package manager than I ever saw in windows, again with those horrible descriptions for a standard user.

Having said all this, I do like it, it's a huge advancement from where linux was when I started using it, but for those people that haven't used linux before, it's sometimes more confusing than helpful. Possibly because software updates in Windows or OS X are software updates for Windows or OS X, not software updates for "samba-common - samba common files used by both the server and the client"

I think part of the reason for the horrible descriptions I think is that Linux package managers try to shoehorn one mechanism into working for both system updates (libraries, kernels, daemons, etc) as well as end-user software.

Whenever I read "like by magic", I mentally have to add "when it works".

I think the last time APT borked a system I used unexpectedly was in 2003 and I was running Debian testing with parts of Sid thrown in: I expected it to fail from time to time. The fact it did only a handful of times was remarkable by itself.

The other time I remember was a couple months back when I added a bleeding edge Intel GMA driver to solve a bug I was trying to help to fix and it completely fubar'ed my X. It was easier to dump a package list to a separate partition and reinstall from the CD.

I never saw APT misbehaving unless provoked.

Repositories are a wonderful sexy and brilliant thing with lots going for them. But I always like to counter effusive praise like that with some caveats. Like that they do have flaws; often dependencies aren't worked out correctly, many of the interfaces are a little confusing/inaccessible for a noob, the ratio of signal/noise in terms of quality software is sometimes annoyingly low, I've yet to see a really good GUI search interface for one, often you get an older version of the software.

And so forth.

Or you get a hacked up version that does not behave as you'd expect it to. E.g.: if you install gems using apt on ubuntu or debian, you'll get a modified version that tries to install rubygems from one of their own repositories. Also, it wasn't correctly symlinking gems after i'd install them either.

Apart from that though, yeah, repositories are pretty sexy indeed.

I've never even thought of installing more than one package manager. I package CPAN modules when I need them. If I needed gems, I'd probably do the same thing.

I am always weary of installing gems (actually, I use mostly Python, so I install eggs). It seems wrong to go against APT.

I can understand that, but it's easy enough to specify the apt repository as a parameter to the gems command. If you really want it as the default, it's trivial to alias that. There's something to be said for just letting your packages have the default behaviour.

This is basically my favorite thing about Linux. I can install almost anything I could possibly want by typing one command.

And for users of lesser interfaces (GUIs):

sudo apt-get install lighttpd

A lot easier than navigating a list.

And a lot easier than going to a website, download, unzip copy manually to a folder, also the GUIs for apt are very good.

And looks a lot safer than downloading an executable and trusting your computer to it.

Has anybody switched from a Linux distro to OpenSolaris as their main OS? Experiences? I'm contemplating it...

My worst complaint was it uses an outdated version of Gnome. OpenSolaris could have a tiered repository structure analog to Debian's stable/testing/experimental/unstable.

If you want a life without surprises, you run "OpenSolaris boring". If you are a little more brave, you go with "OS risky" and if you like a life of adventures (and of fixing your computer) you could go with "OS adventurous".

You can also have a final version, "OpenSolaris bleeding" with all software rebuilt from the newest sources every other day with no assurances beyond "it compiles".

BTW, I used to call Debian testing "works, mostly" and unstable "should compile".

This is news?

Not really, but 3rd party software centralized update is starting to appear on non-Linux platforms like the iPhone. It's becoming an important feature.