Re: [MiNT] Re[2]: GEM boost

[Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@bassment.nu>]

> As a former Magic user who switched to Mint I wonder if my impressions
> are useful to the group ?

Very :o) Survival of the Atari world will depend on MagiC users switching to 
MiNT (being the only living Atari OS). :o)

> To be honest I don't like the wat uni* organises it's files. I hate
> the fact the software is scattered across the disc. I much prefer
> the GEM approach of locating each app in it's own folder

I used to think the same but I've learned that once you get used to the Unix 
idea, it's much more organised. In the "old" way you have all your documents 
scattered as well by the way (each in the folder of the corresponding 
application). There are apps where it's really more convenient to stuff them 
all in their own folder, that's what /opt is generally used for 
(like /opt/netscape).

> and just 
> being able to delete it whenever I want with no side effects.

Yes that's kinda like Evan's arguments but that's like not going to the doctor 
because you're afraid you might have a scary disease. :o) A package manager 
doesn't make it more difficult to delete an application. It helps you when it 
IS more difficult, and with modern apps it usually is. Modern computer use 
requires applications working together and installing/removing an application 
simply isn't as easy as copying or deleting a folder (file associations, 
OLGA, 3rd party tools, help system integration etc etc etc).

And when you really think of it, and you compare 2 systems, one with 
executables scattered all over one disk (in the corresponding application's 
folders), where you have the freedom to move everything around (why?!) and 
then find broken path references for the next 3 months, and one with an 
organised strict file structure and a database (RPM) that knows exactly what 
is installed and what isn't, and what depends on what, the last one IS the 
better one, it's no matter of taste. The only thing that makes the first 
system feel more comfortable is because you're used to it. There's some sort 
of control you want to keep but shouldn't. It does give you a whole lot of 
useless freedom that only makes things more complicated (like the mess when 
you need an extra drive and want to share stuff from the first one on it, 
you'll need to reconfigure every program you have; with a unix file structure 
that's just a matter of some links ("mount points" but in MiNT they're just 
links) and no application will actually see the difference.

> Also, I hate playing "hunt the file" when some config file has to be
> edited.

That's why you need proper documentation. In any system.

> I had no previous experience of package managers like RPM. tar.gz was
> annoying enough since I couldn't use nice friendly GEM progs like TWo-in
> One.

You say "annoying enough" like rpm is worse.. but it's SO much easier. :o) 
(When you have to unpack manually, that's usually the start and you also have 
to INSTALL manually).

> I did manually install a few RPMs from the command line but I am an ATari
> user and not a fan of cli. I had enough of them with TOPS10, VMS, MVS,
> Unix, DOS etc.

I agree a graphical frontend would be nice but I do feel people are much too 
religiously against CLI. In Linux I have a graphical frontend for RPM but I 
never use it, since just typing rpm -Uvh (followed by the first few letters 
of the name and then hitting TAB) is so much faster.

> The RPM Tool app makes life a bit easier but like using Windows Installers
> you just have to hope it's all going to work and not wreck anything. Scary
> sometimes.

This is where you really have the wrong feeling. There is a major difference 
between Windows Installers and RPM. Windows Installers are standalone 
programs that place files on your harddisk, change configurations and that's 
it. Then you (hopefully!) have another Uninstaller that tries to remove 
things (and usually fails). But there is no centralized database that keeps 
track of what exactly is installed. Only for the Windows components 
themselves (and it looks like even that is really just based on checking for 
the existence of certain files, since "searching for installed components" 
takes ages, and also Windows reinstalls the same components over and over 
again when you add or modify network cards for example). So there is all 
kinds of scary stuff that can go wrong. Like apps refusing to install because 
they're already installed, but refusing to uninstall because they're 
apparantly not yet installed (been there many times). And of course when you 
remove an application, Windows can only guess if the DLL's that, according to 
the registry, are no longer referenced, can really be deleted (in fact it 
lets YOU guess, and recommends that you just leave everything on your 
ever-filling harddisk).

With RPM none of this is the case. The system knows exactly what it's doing 
(_because_ you pass over total control over installations), and instead of 
your applications being installed by several different proprietry 
install-wizards, there is one centralized system that knows exactly which 
file belongs to which package(!), and what packages depend on what other 
packages.

So at first glance it may seem the same, but it's a world of difference.

> I never know if I should be doing Install or Update ! 

Install is for new packages and update for new versions of installed packages, 
but update will automatically switch to install if the package wasn't 
installed already, so just always do update.

> It does seem to work though and for maintaining the OS level stuff it
> has been fine.

Well, don't be afraid to hand over control over your application install as 
well when you get the chance. It really makes life easier. :o)

Maurits.