[conspire] Ehhh... Linux image problem, ya think?

[Daniel Gimpelevich]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:13:48 -0700, Rick Moen wrote:

> [CCing Phil Z.]
> 
> Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):
> 
>> "As usual, Mac OS X users will find the installation procedure
>> self-explanatory. Linux users will actually have to compile the source
>> code and build it, but we figured typical Linux weenies can handle that.
>> Later, we will provide Linux binaries so you won't have to build it."
>> 
>> Taken from:
>> http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/zfone/index-start.html
> 
> Translation:  Zfone can't be bothered to do proper package formats,
> because they're clueless about same.  
> 
> It should be noted that OS X, shockingly for a 2006 operating system,
> has no package management whatsoever.  Even Windows XP has basic program
> registration with the system and the Add and Remove Programs Control
> Panel, but OS X has nada.
> 
> I was quite flabbergasted to observe, on OS X, that there's no canonical
> way to remove a software package, because there is in fact no software 
> package system in the first place.  In theory, you'd have to hunt down
> all the little pieces of some program and remove them.  In practice, you
> either just delete the parts you can find and hope for the best, or wait
> until the next full system rebuild to dispose of the problem.

This is not really true as long as the software package uses Apple's
installer mechanism, which puts the information needed for uninstallation
into /Library/Receipts for some unknown purpose. The canonical way to
remove a software package has become a piece of software called Pacifist,
but I find that DesInstaller works just fine if you're careful. The
package management system is there, and is just as vulnerable to abuse by
a clueless sysadmin as RPM or dpkg. The difference is that not all the
functionality you'd expect is included in the shipping product. The
reasons for this are partly historical, reminiscent of when there were no
little pieces all over the place, but only in one place. Some OS X
software is still like that, which is why it will lack any sort of
installer other than the sysadmin's act of copying a folder over. Each
.app is supposed to be self-contained and not dependent on anything
outside its directory that isn't stock. On OS X, Apple's package
management system can coexist with Fink's dpkg, DarwinPorts's ports,
various vendor-imposed package registration systems from the use of
non-Apple installers, and stuff installed by manually copying folders
over, all without the need to separate them all in different sections of
the directory tree, and without the type of uninstallation you describe a
requirement. You mention a "full system rebuild" above, but that's
something unique to the Windows world. Typically, a Mac's HD never gets
reformatted during the entire life of the HD in that machine, and the OS
never gets reinstalled. The need for package management is a reflection of
the complexity of the filesystem hierarchy imposed on the user, because
its function is the automation of compliance with that hierarchy.
Traditionally, the Mac made absolutely zero imposition of filesystem
hierarchy on anyone, so the existence of package management would have
addressed a need nobody had. OS X does its darndest to preserve this
legacy as best it can in a Unix environment, as a form of superiority over
systems where the need package management is not given a second thought.
People coming over from Windows keep asking how it's possible to run a
system without anti-virus and anti-spyware software, and that's no
different from you asking how it's possible to run a system without
package management. Of course, that doesn't mean that using package
management on OS X can't be superior to not doing so, but that is left up
to the user as a stark contrast to the ill-advisedness of software
installations outside the confines of the package management system in use
on a Linux distribution.