Most desired Leopard feature: Ubuntu-style program manager
I used to use Linux (Mandrake, Slackware, then Gentoo) on a PC before switching to Mac. While I don't regret the switch, I do miss a few features from the Linux world. Among them is the totally flexible keyboard shortcut setup on GNOME and KDE, including the ability to assign a keyboard shortcut to launch a specific application. However, what I miss most are the download/install managers.
Gentoo has emerge, Fedora has yum, and Ubuntu has apt-get. Ubuntu's graphical apt-get polls its repository for all the open source software in its catalogue. It's then possible to view a description for each package, and to simultaneously resolve the dependencies for that program, install them, download the main program, install it, and then do any post-install configuration. It's very handy!
On Mac, I still need to manually download each program I want to install, extract it, and then drag it to the applications folder.
Granted, since each program is a self-contained .app folder, it should be far easier to architect such a solution that Linux programs, which, like Windows, propagate their files throughout the entire directory structure.
MacPorts *sort of* does the above, but only via a command-line interface and mostly by compiling source code. I've heard of very few non-X11 GUI programs (ex: iTerm) that are installed this way, and even then, they're at least a version behind.
Hopefully Apple will have some pleasant surprises come WWDC
Gentoo has emerge, Fedora has yum, and Ubuntu has apt-get. Ubuntu's graphical apt-get polls its repository for all the open source software in its catalogue. It's then possible to view a description for each package, and to simultaneously resolve the dependencies for that program, install them, download the main program, install it, and then do any post-install configuration. It's very handy!
On Mac, I still need to manually download each program I want to install, extract it, and then drag it to the applications folder.
Granted, since each program is a self-contained .app folder, it should be far easier to architect such a solution that Linux programs, which, like Windows, propagate their files throughout the entire directory structure.
MacPorts *sort of* does the above, but only via a command-line interface and mostly by compiling source code. I've heard of very few non-X11 GUI programs (ex: iTerm) that are installed this way, and even then, they're at least a version behind.
Hopefully Apple will have some pleasant surprises come WWDC
Comments
I used to use Linux (Mandrake, Slackware, then Gentoo) on a PC before switching to Mac. While I don't regret the switch, I do miss a few features from the Linux world. Among them is the totally flexible keyboard shortcut setup on GNOME and KDE, including the ability to assign a keyboard shortcut to launch a specific application. However, what I miss most are the download/install managers.
Gentoo has emerge, Fedora has yum, and Ubuntu has apt-get. Ubuntu's graphical apt-get polls its repository for all the open source software in its catalogue. It's then possible to view a description for each package, and to simultaneously resolve the dependencies for that program, install them, download the main program, install it, and then do any post-install configuration. It's very handy!
On Mac, I still need to manually download each program I want to install, extract it, and then drag it to the applications folder.
Granted, since each program is a self-contained .app folder, it should be far easier to architect such a solution that Linux programs, which, like Windows, propagate their files throughout the entire directory structure.
MacPorts *sort of* does the above, but only via a command-line interface and mostly by compiling source code. I've heard of very few non-X11 GUI programs (ex: iTerm) that are installed this way, and even then, they're at least a version behind.
Hopefully Apple will have some pleasant surprises come WWDC
If you don't like command line try PortAuthority works well.
As for the rest, not going to happen as there are (almost - never say never) no dependencies to resolve outside of the X11 ports.
Overall install packages are sooo much easier than the linux package managers. We produce our software to run on both linux and OS X, X11. The install package was quicker and easier to put together and the users have not had problems.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "As for the rest, not going to happen". It should be much simpler to write a download and install manager program because all it would need to do would be:
1) Maintain a database or repository of open-source GUI software that's available natively on Mac.
2) For each entry, maintain a simple description, url for the pkg file, and versioning information for that program.
3) Code a routine that allows for the program to be downloaded and then the .app extracted to the /Applications folder (or wherever else a user chooses).
4) Flag the program as either installed or not yet installed for a particular version.
5) Code an "uninstall" routine that involves sending the .app folder to the trash.
Since .apps are not dependent on each other, this would be far simpler to code than the Ubuntu apt-get front end.
I'm even tempted to write this thing myself. Just need to learn Cocoa and Objective-C, I guess (hopefully it's as simple as it sounds).
If you don't like command line try PortAuthority works well.
As for the rest, not going to happen as there are (almost - never say never) no dependencies to resolve outside of the X11 ports.
Overall install packages are sooo much easier than the linux package managers. We produce our software to run on both linux and OS X, X11. The install package was quicker and easier to put together and the users have not had problems.
http://darwinports.com/
http://finkcommander.sourceforge.net/
I find the Mac way of doing it much better though as I can look for reviews and screenshots of software as well as put the app wherever I like. I don't always put apps in the applications folder.
There's fink commander and drawinports too:
http://darwinports.com/
http://finkcommander.sourceforge.net/
I find the Mac way of doing it much better though as I can look for reviews and screenshots of software as well as put the app wherever I like. I don't always put apps in the applications folder.
I don't understand why you're all trying to make this an either/or debate.
The OS X installation system is brilliant, in the sense that each application is a self-contained folder that can be kept wherever the users wishes (/Applications or anywhere else), dragged and dropped to the trash, and whose internal structure is encapsulated from the user. It's also more secure because, as a folder, a malicious program can't be sent by email.
The apt-get installation system is brilliant in that it saves the user the hassle of having to visit a website and then manually download and extract a program.
What I propose is the best of both worlds:
1) Existing system of .app folders.
2) Wrapper that will allow you to find, view descriptions of, download, install, resolve versions, and uninstall from a single application.
I think implementing 2) as a wrapper to 1) would be very easy to do.
I don't understand why you're all trying to make this an either/or debate.
The OS X installation system is brilliant, in the sense that each application is a self-contained folder that can be kept wherever the users wishes (/Applications or anywhere else), dragged and dropped to the trash, and whose internal structure is encapsulated from the user. It's also more secure because, as a folder, a malicious program can't be sent by email.
The apt-get installation system is brilliant in that it saves the user the hassle of having to visit a website and then manually download and extract a program.
What I propose is the best of both worlds:
1) Existing system of .app folders.
2) Wrapper that will allow you to find, view descriptions of, download, install, resolve versions, and uninstall from a single application.
I think implementing 2) as a wrapper to 1) would be very easy to do.
Sorry, didn't mean to make it either or its just that you brought up Apple doing the 'app-get' routine and that's not going to happen it what I'm saying. Apple has provided no direct support of this process that I'm aware of. We've ported an X11 based software system to OS X can found no real help from Apple.
Sorry, didn't mean to make it either or its just that you brought up Apple doing the 'app-get' routine and that's not going to happen it what I'm saying. Apple has provided no direct support of this process that I'm aware of. We've ported an X11 based software system to OS X can found no real help from Apple.
I'm curious how the KDE dev team is going about this with KOffice 2.0. Apparently, the alpha runs natively on OS X, but I haven't been able to find a download link.
It's also more secure because, as a folder, a malicious program can't be sent by email.
The binaries are still single files though. The folder is meant to store resources like icons and templates but malicious programs don't normally use those.
What I propose is the best of both worlds:
1) Existing system of .app folders.
2) Wrapper that will allow you to find, view descriptions of, download, install, resolve versions, and uninstall from a single application.
I think implementing 2) as a wrapper to 1) would be very easy to do.
Kind of like the Software Update feature in OS X but for 3rd parties? I guess that would be useful as you could see at a glance all the apps you have and what updates are available but it would only work as long as a lot of Mac developers were willing to put in the effort to work with the system and keep it up to date.
I found that with one of the apps I mentioned above. Some ports I knew were available as I found them via google but they didn't show up in the program.
The apt-get installation system is brilliant in that it saves the user the hassle of having to visit a website and then manually download and extract a program.
What about a situation where someone doesn't have a fast internet connection (e.g. my mum) and she needs to get a 20MB software update (e.g. VLC)? I think it would only work in certain circumstances. Also, it's not that much more hassle IMO unless you were updating lots of apps at once but application updates don't really come all that often.
I also don't like encouraging people to use systems that are completely automated because I can see them coming here saying something like 'I used the auto update software and now my computer's broke, what do I do?'
http://www.void.gr/kargig/blog/2007/...uch-sometimes/
If there were ways round these problems and it has advantages over the current system then I don't see why not.
The apt-get installation system is brilliant in that it saves the user the hassle of having to visit a website and then manually download and extract a program.
Honestly? I only see it as preferable to the 'old skool' Unix software distro method, which was, to put it succinctly, a nightmare. Tracking dependencies, which is what apt-get is really doing, was the problem it solved. The fact that it presents a pick list of apps you can get, is really just icing on the cake.
For that, you can pretty much go to versiontracker.com, y'know?
What I propose is the best of both worlds:
1) Existing system of .app folders.
2) Wrapper that will allow you to find, view descriptions of, download, install, resolve versions, and uninstall from a single application.
I think implementing 2) as a wrapper to 1) would be very easy to do.
Easy? Sure. Useful? Eh... I don't see what problem it solves. As I said, in the case of Unix/Linux software distribution, tracking those *&%(@#% dependencies was just a royal pain in the keister. apt-get and the other managers were a fantastic idea. I just don't see how they're particularly needed in the MacOS X world.
Install: drag and drop
Uninstall: delete
That covers the vast majority of software out there. A picklist requires a central registry, etc, etc, which we already have in the form of versiontracker and other similar websites. Heck, VT even sells an app to do exactly what you're talking about. It lets you know when updates are available, and provides a centralized list. OTOH, most apps manage their own updates now, at least the ones I use.
If you're solely talking about the CLI and X11 apps, then as others have pointed out, fink, macports, and so on are your best bet, and fink at least does have a GUI app.
Do you have a particular use case that you see this helping? Or does it really just boil down to "Visiting a website and downloading a .dmg is too much work"?
Among them is the totally flexible keyboard shortcut setup on GNOME and KDE, including the ability to assign a keyboard shortcut to launch a specific application.
Actually this is functionality that got lost in the transition Mac OS 9 --> Mac OS X. In the old Mac OS 9 days you could program the function keys to launch an application, open a document etc. Fortunately, there is DragThing that will let you assign shortcuts to launch applications, although this comes as a bonus since DragThing serves other purposes.
Install: drag and drop
Uninstall: delete
You're missing several other steps:
1) Google for the site
2) Make sure you have the right link.
3) Click on the link.
4) Hunt for the "download" section.
5) Hunt for the version you want.
6) Click on the download link.
7) Click "open" or double-click the dmg file.
That covers the vast majority of software out there. A picklist requires a central registry, etc, etc, which we already have in the form of versiontracker and other similar websites. Heck, VT even sells an app to do exactly what you're talking about. It lets you know when updates are available, and provides a centralized list. OTOH, most apps manage their own updates now, at least the ones I use.
The only app that I have that manages this is Firefox. I didn't know about patch 5 for NeoOffice 2.1 until I saw a link for it on an unrelated site. Had I not visited that site, I would have never known.
If you're solely talking about the CLI and X11 apps, then as others have pointed out, fink, macports, and so on are your best bet, and fink at least does have a GUI app.
I'm talking about GUI apps that are .app folders. Everything else falls within the scope of MacPorts.
Do you have a particular use case that you see this helping?
1) Installing the app in the first place. Several clicks will be saved by doing this.
2) Getting notifications about updates to apps that I already have installed.
3) Applying updates to apps that I already have installed without having to revisit, and in some cases, re-find the link.
4) Seeing descriptions of new or updated apps without having to visit the sites, along with other data such as expected disk size of the final installation.
5) Viewing the version of the update or new install without downloading the .dmg and viewing the metadata.
6) (this is not a repeat of 2) Getting notifications for critical security updates to any of my apps.
7) Uninstalling several programs at once (some people might want to do some cleanup).
8) Configuring the directory where I want my applications installed by default (maybe I don't like /Applications)
9) Viewing in one glance what files and directory structure is within my .app.
10) A possible tie-in with legal torrents for free and open-source .apps.
Or does it really just boil down to "Visiting a website and downloading a .dmg is too much work"?
Yes, actually, it is. Many sites are so badly structured that you have to hunt for the download link. Sometimes the link is to the wrong app or version, and on some rare occasions, the link is dead.
What's more, a browser should be used to view webpages. It should not be used as an update and install manager.
The problem with the internet is everybody wants to build everything around the browser.
Why don't people just view RSS feeds in browsers? Well, because that's not the best way to view them. Thats' why RSSOwl was written.
Why do you think Apple built the iTunes store so it could only be viewed in iTunes, despite the fact that the store is mostly rendered in HTML? It's simple. Apple knows that to offer the best music shopping and previewing experience, a dedicated app is necessary. It allows you to view music files and tracks within a dedicated client-side grid, instead of the problematic HTML grids and allows you to preview the track directly in a media player (iTunes) instead of linking to it. The biggest reason emusic's and other music stores are inferior is because they work within a browser, which an inferior music shopping experience.
A browser is the wrong application to use to manage downloads and installs over the internet. It's a perversion and bastardization of that type of internet program.
I also don't like encouraging people to use systems that are completely automated because I can see them coming here saying something like 'I used the auto update software and now my computer's broke, what do I do?'
You're saying they can't break their system by dragging and dropping the wrong .app folder into their /Applications folder? I really don't see your point.
You're missing several other steps:
1) Google for the site
2) Make sure you have the right link.
3) Click on the link.
4) Hunt for the "download" section.
5) Hunt for the version you want.
6) Click on the download link.
7) Click "open" or double-click the dmg file.
versiontracker.com
Seriously.
Go download their app, it does *EXACTLY* what you say you want. Takes care of 1-7.
The only app that I have that manages this is Firefox. I didn't know about patch 5 for NeoOffice 2.1 until I saw a link for it on an unrelated site. Had I not visited that site, I would have never known.
Mail the developers, demand better apps.
1) Installing the app in the first place. Several clicks will be saved by doing this.
versiontracker.com
2) Getting notifications about updates to apps that I already have installed.
Darned near every app I use does this for me, and for those that don't, there's VersionTracker Pro...
3) Applying updates to apps that I already have installed without having to revisit, and in some cases, re-find the link.
Try looking in the About App... or Help menus. Seriously. Most apps have those handy links right there for you.
4) Seeing descriptions of new or updated apps without having to visit the sites, along with other data such as expected disk size of the final installation.
versiontracker.com
5) Viewing the version of the update or new install without downloading the .dmg and viewing the metadata.
versiontracker.com
6) (this is not a repeat of 2) Getting notifications for critical security updates to any of my apps.
Pretty much is a repeat of 2, when the apps do it for you...
7) Uninstalling several programs at once (some people might want to do some cleanup).
What, selecting multiple items and dragging to the trash is now too much work? JC, you're stretching here...
8) Configuring the directory where I want my applications installed by default (maybe I don't like /Applications)
Kinda depends on where you dropped it, doesn't it?
9) Viewing in one glance what files and directory structure is within my .app.
Ctrl-click -> Open Package Contents
10) A possible tie-in with legal torrents for free and open-source .apps.
Gotta say, you got me there. Not sure why, but... sure.
Yes, actually, it is. Many sites are so badly structured that you have to hunt for the download link. Sometimes the link is to the wrong app or version, and on some rare occasions, the link is dead.
versiontracker.com (I'm beginning to feel like a broken record here, I hope you don't delete all references to it again...)
What's more, a browser should be used to view webpages. It should not be used as an update and install manager.
Okay, this is a very odd position, IMO. You're saying that the browser shouldn't be used for looking up data on the net? Hmm.
The problem with the internet is everybody wants to build everything around the browser.
Why don't people just view RSS feeds in browsers? Well, because that's not the best way to view them. Thats' why RSSOwl was written.
Why do you think Apple built the iTunes store so it could only be viewed in iTunes, despite the fact that the store is mostly rendered in HTML? It's simple. Apple knows that to offer the best music shopping and previewing experience, a dedicated app is necessary. It allows you to view music files and tracks within a dedicated client-side grid, instead of the problematic HTML grids and allows you to preview the track directly in a media player (iTunes) instead of linking to it. The biggest reason emusic's and other music stores are inferior is because they work within a browser, which an inferior music shopping experience.
A browser is the wrong application to use to manage downloads and installs over the internet. It's a perversion and bastardization of that type of internet program.
Might I suggest... wait for it... *drumroll*.... VersionTracker Pro. It is, as you are requesting, a version notification, download, and update manager that is a custom app that uses the same data as, but does not rely on, the browser.
Really, go look at the site. Then come on back, and tell us what it is still missing, because I'm not seeing it. From my POV, you're asking for a solution that already exists, in a couple of forms.
BTW, if versiontracker doesn't float your boat, macupdate.com does pretty much exactly the same thing, and they also have an app. The point is, there are multiple solutions out there that do what you have said you want. Check them out, they'll almost certainly work for you.
And if not, well... that's the beauty of scratching your own itch, right?
VersionTracker Pro
Glad you agree with me on most of my points.
I'll try it out. Still, USD $50 seems a little steep.
Enjoy, and let us know if there are any points those apps don't cover that you'd want. I'm kind of curious now...
Yeah, it does to me too, which is why I haven't gotten it...
Is this a yearly fee like in the MacUpdate Desktop case?
In my opinion, the best approach is to have the apps handle their own updates. I like it when an app, on launch, says "Hey, there's a new update - interested?" and I can choose to do it then or later. Usually just takes a minute, and voila, I'm off an running again. I download full installers/disk images from time to time when I think about it, but the convenience of in-app update is really nice.
Having a central repository is either going to be at the dmg/pkg level, ala VT Pro/MacUpdate, or it's going to have to figure out how to generalize updating for *any* app... and then convince all the devs to get on board with it. I don't see that happening, even from Apple. Give them the framework to do their own updating? Sure. Heck, maybe... *maybe* even have an app that scans across for all apps that use that framework, and check for updates, then trigger the update from within the app. That might work. But I've gotten too attached to the in-app update feature to want to, IMO, go backwards to a dmg/pkg manager.
Versiontracker.com or macupdate.com for finding apps, and then in-app update for maintenance is the best combo IMO. Opinions vary, of course...
On Windows, it keeps programs like Firefox and Adobe Reader up to date, and also manages downloading of programs that you might like to try, i.e. Google Earth. Once you download a program, Updater will check for new versions periodically for you and even download and install them automatically if you like.
The program is clean, simple, straightforward, and saves you the hassle of having to install/update each program individually, not to mention having to go through the individual installers of each program.
Google Updater does the same thing on the Mac, but only with Google's Mac applications: Google Notifier, Google Earth, Google Desktop, etc.
Granted, installation and removal of applications on the Mac is way easier than on Windows, but having it centralized in a simple, automated program could make it even simpler. Why not?
You're saying they can't break their system by dragging and dropping the wrong .app folder into their /Applications folder? I really don't see your point.
If software updates 20 apps at a time, it's much harder to track down what went wrong especially if it's messing with dependencies (I actually tend to install using software update sparingly and one or two updates at a time). Modifying individual apps gives you more control and as updates don't hapen all that often, it doesn't really waste that much time. I reckon I can get an update for a piece of software online in a negligible amount of time and often apps have built-in 'check for updates' menus.
Firefox auto-update annoys me and I'd hate to see that system in place. I use it and it tells me an update is available. If I click no thanks, it says well who gives a sh*t what you want, I'm updating the next time you open the program whether you like it or not. No matter if it breaks plugins or has unforeseen bugs or security problems. Some professionals use very old versions of software because they know they can rely on them to get work done and updates can only be done if they are known to not cause any issues. That happened at my brother's work with Quark and they had to downgrade all their versions. Updating should be entirely voluntary and easy updates would make people less and less inclined to read the changes made to see if they need the update. If it ain't broke, don't break it.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't want it, if you feel it would make your life easier then by all means but I think you are trying to oversell it. You're the first person I've heard say that OS X should be more like Linux, mostly it's the other way round and a lot of Linux users are tired of using the updaters and would love to be able to just drag/drop/delete.
All I'm saying is there should be a dedicated app to handle software downloads and installations in much the same way that iTunes is a dedicated media player and online media store. This is the primary reason that iTMS is superior to emusic, even more so than content, and despite the fact that as of today, 100% of music on iTunes is still DRM'd (until this Tuesday?).
I agree that Firefox auto-updates are a little too aggressive.
As for Mac and Linux, I think both OS's can steal each other's best ideas:
Best of Mac:
1) .app folders
2) Command-Tab to switch apps, Command-Tilde to switch windows within apps
3) Enforced command-comma to view preferences
4) Menu bar at the top of the screen, not within the window.
5) OS-wide calendar service (Leopard)
6) Expose
7) OS-wide addressbook
8) OS-wide dictionary and spell-checker settings
etc...
Best of Linux:
1) Installer/Update/Download manager program (at least, for all open-source software)
2) Totally configurable keyboard shortcuts, including as application launchers
3) Windows migration tool (ok, this is only Ubuntu 7.0.4)
4) Easier configuration for preferred applications (Browser, Email, Terminal, etc)
etc...
BTW, I tried VersionTracker Pro, and it's most definitely not worth the price. It doesn't even download dmgs for you, it only opens a link to the download page in your browser.
A download/install/update manager wouldn't be a replacement for drag-and-drop installs. It would be an optional compliment.
If software updates 20 apps at a time, it's much harder to track down what went wrong especially if it's messing with dependencies (I actually tend to install using software update sparingly and one or two updates at a time). Modifying individual apps gives you more control and as updates don't hapen all that often, it doesn't really waste that much time. I reckon I can get an update for a piece of software online in a negligible amount of time and often apps have built-in 'check for updates' menus.
Firefox auto-update annoys me and I'd hate to see that system in place. I use it and it tells me an update is available. If I click no thanks, it says well who gives a sh*t what you want, I'm updating the next time you open the program whether you like it or not. No matter if it breaks plugins or has unforeseen bugs or security problems. Some professionals use very old versions of software because they know they can rely on them to get work done and updates can only be done if they are known to not cause any issues. That happened at my brother's work with Quark and they had to downgrade all their versions. Updating should be entirely voluntary and easy updates would make people less and less inclined to read the changes made to see if they need the update. If it ain't broke, don't break it.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't want it, if you feel it would make your life easier then by all means but I think you are trying to oversell it. You're the first person I've heard say that OS X should be more like Linux, mostly it's the other way round and a lot of Linux users are tired of using the updaters and would love to be able to just drag/drop/delete.
I used to use Linux (Mandrake, Slackware, then Gentoo) on a PC before switching to Mac. While I don't regret the switch, I do miss a few features from the Linux world. Among them is the totally flexible keyboard shortcut setup on GNOME and KDE, including the ability to assign a keyboard shortcut to launch a specific application. However, what I miss most are the download/install managers.
I know of at least 2 apps which can help you get keyboard shortcuts for specific applications. Quicksilver which has "Triggers" which are essentially keyboard shortcuts for anything you can do in Quicksilver including launch applications or go to the next song in iTunes.
Butler, which I haven't tried, but you might want to look into it if you haven't tried Quicksilver yet or just don't like Quicksilver (which would be shocking).
Sebastian