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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Daniel Gimpelevich (daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us):

> 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. 

One would have little confidence that the software does that, and
very long Mac OS experience suggests that it's probably very much a Wild 
West situation, unfortunately.  Moreover:

> The canonical way to remove a software package has become a piece 
> of software called Pacifist,

o  third-party shareware
o  I see nothing on the Web about Pacifist being useful for UNinstalling
   packages, though it's useful for repairing installed software.
   Info page:  http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/12743

> but I find that DesInstaller works just fine if you're careful.

o  third-party gratis-proprietary program
o  said to be really dangerous
   Info page:  http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/13955

> The package management system is there, and is just as vulnerable to 
> abuse by a clueless sysadmin as RPM or dpkg. 

I think the descriptions of your two cited downloadable add-ons suffice
to show that the package management system, if "there", is very poorly 
developed and unreliable in practice.


> 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.

Exactly my point.  No coherent management system.

> You mention a "full system rebuild" above, but that's
> something unique to the Windows world.

No it's not.  Daniel, don't forget, I've been using MacOS versions all
the way back to the 128K Mac with MFS filesystems.   In the 1980s, in
the days of System 6.0.x and 7.x, I was the MIS Department for an entire
software firm full of Macs, and every other week, some yoyo from the
Sales Department would haul in his Quadra (I rated only a IIci) for
rebuild because it had gotten so screwed up.

> Typically, a Mac's HD never gets reformatted during the entire life of
> the HD in that machine, and the OS never gets reinstalled.

Actually, what is _most_ typical is that the Mac OS user suddenly
realises he's completely out of disk space, and has absolutely no clue
about what to do about it, having absolutely no conception of overall
system management.  These people used to bring their Quadras to my desk,
too: The inevitable solution was to deploy a bigger hard drive for the
user, and copy the whole huge mess of his/her volume over.

> 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.

Actually, the need for package management exists irrespective of that.

> 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.

This is just plain wrong.  Nope.  I can't tell you how much easier real
package management would have made my life as a Mac OS network admin and
MIS guy.

> 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. 

Actually, those are very fundamentally different topics.  I haven't made
a specific study of the subject (it not being within my areas of
interest), but I'd guess that OS X's main protections against malware
are (1) relatively careful design of userspace apps that handle public
data (the ex-NeXTMail app, Safari, various media players, (2) Software
Update, and (3) use of privilege separation / sudo.

It's possible to run a system without package management because, well,
it's _always_ been possible.  It merely sucks.  It's always sucked before,
it does now, and it will in the future.

> 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.

How is having unmanaged, locally-installed software any _more_
ill-advised on, say, Ubuntu than it is on OS X?  (I pick Ubuntu because
it has a roughly similar privilege-separation model, though OS X's 
default ownership/rights are rather dangerously loose.)  I agree that
it's a bad idea -- but equally so on both.