[Espen Isaksen]

Hi!

On my Mac I am using Quicksilver to find my files and start my applications. When using Linux(Fedora Core 3) at work I have missed this application a lot. However I have now at found a software on Linux which might help me out a bit. So now I am trying to install Beagle on my laptop.

While doing this I started to wonder why it often is so difficult to install Linux software compared to Mac software. Installing Beagle forces me to install a handfull of other software and also a new kernel.

Why is it that I do not have to do all this when I install for example Quicksilver on my Mac?

Espen

[Mithras]

Well, Beagle does a lot more than Quicksilver does. Features like live updating -- as in this really cool example make it much more akin to Spotlight than Quicksilver.

Spotlight will also require a new kernel, for the same reasons Beagle does -- to accommodate the automatic-updating-whenever-you-change-create-or-move-a-file functionality.

But yes, I certainly agree that in general, Linux installation is worlds more complicated than OS X installation.

[Espen Isaksen]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Well, Beagle does a lot more than Quicksilver does. Features like live updating -- as in this really cool example make it much more akin to Spotlight than Quicksilver.

Yes, it certainly look pretty cool.

Spotlight will also require a new kernel, for the same reasons Beagle does -- to accommodate the automatic-updating-whenever-you-change-create-or-move-a-file functionality.

That's true...

But I am still wondering why everything on Linux seems to be dependent on something else, while on OSX I don't really ever think of it.

[PBG4 User]

Originally posted by Espen Isaksen:

But I am still wondering why everything on Linux seems to be dependent on something else, while on OSX I don't really ever think of it.

Maybe this is because one company controls the design of the OS, as opposed to an OS by committee. I don't know if this is true but it could be an issue.

Linux has a monolithic kernel where OS X has the Mach-O microkernel. I believe (I could be wrong) that a micro-kernel has a specific set of things it does, but these things are supposed to be general enough that the kernel is useable for whatever you need an OS to do. This kind of kernel requires much up-front planning.

Linux's monolithic kernel means you can compile new functionality into it, but this requires a recompile (i.e. a new kernel) in order to add the new functionality. I believe this type of kernel doesn't require as much up front planning since you can "add new features later".

Also, Apple/NeXT has spent much time building & refining the frameworks used to build GUI apps on OS X. These frameworks are common to every Cocoa program. In Linux, you have to worry about if the program is for KDE, Gnome or something else. You have to worry about whether you have the correct libraries already installed (dependencies), etc.

Since you can use any of multiple technologies when you develop for Linux, the end-user will need these libraries on their machine to run your program. In OS X almost all programs use only the libraries provided with OS X (or there own frameworks like Omni). If they use their own custom frameworks these are usually part of the application install.

This is all in my understanding, I could be completely off base with this whole post. If I am, someone please correct me (I'd like to get it right too).

[utidjian]

Originally posted by Espen Isaksen:
Hi!

On my Mac I am using Quicksilver to find my files and start my applications. When using Linux(Fedora Core 3) at work I have missed this application a lot. However I have now at found a software on Linux which might help me out a bit. So now I am trying to install Beagle on my laptop.

While doing this I started to wonder why it often is so difficult to install Linux software compared to Mac software. Installing Beagle forces me to install a handfull of other software and also a new kernel.

Why is it that I do not have to do all this when I install for example Quicksilver on my Mac?

That Quicksilver app looks pretty sweet. If you are looking for something exactly like that in Linux it doesn't exist yet. Hmmm actually it used to exist... it was called TkDesk. TkDesk did not look and feel just like Quicksilver but it had very similar functionality.

As someone said before Beagle != Quicksilver. Beagle is much more like Spotlight.

There are several reasons why Beagle, and many other apps for Linux, is difficult to install. The number one reason is that Beagle is very very new (v 0.0.7) and uses a bunch of bleeding edge features that are not part of any standard distribution. So unless your distribution (FC3) includes Beagle it is difficult to install. As you may have noticed with Quicksilver... it requires Mac OS X 10.3.x and may require 10.4.x in the future. If you were running Jaguar (10.2.x) you would be SOL until you upgraded to satisfy the dependencies for Quicksilver. However... with Mac OS X you are lucky... you are very unlikely to run into an app right now that requires Tiger before you can install it and run it. In a few more months many apps will require Tiger.

For the vast majority of applications available for Linux you can simply use the tools and management system that came with FC3, yum. You can add more repos that cover just about every app available for Linux (even a repo for Beagle) and then simply do a 'yum install beagle'... and all dependencies will be taken care of automagically. Actualy it is a little more complicated than that for Beagle. See: http://www.beaglewiki.org/index.php/FedoraInstall for the exact instructions. Personally... Beagle is fun and all but I am going to wait for it to become a regular part of the distribution before I install it on all my systems.

If you system is fully up to date with FC3 you may find that the Run Application tool is pretty handy, as is Nautilus.

Are you using your multiple desktops or do you still tend to try and do everything in one virtual desktop?

[Espen Isaksen]

Originally posted by PBG4 User:
Since you can use any of multiple technologies when you develop for Linux, the end-user will need these libraries on their machine to run your program. In OS X almost all programs use only the libraries provided with OS X (or there own frameworks like Omni). If they use their own custom frameworks these are usually part of the application install.

Ok, so I guess there are many reasons for the difference between application installation on Linux and on a mac. I guess some of the problems stems from Linux being such a diverse community where the different distros all have different dependenciens and so on. Hopefully it should be possible to install Beagle through yum or another package manager in the near future.

Originally posted by utidjian:

If you system is fully up to date with FC3 you may find that the Run Application tool is pretty handy, as is Nautilus.

Yes I am using this feature, but I would like something a little bit more advanced.

Originally posted by utidjian:

Are you using your multiple desktops or do you still tend to try and do everything in one virtual desktop?

No, I am using multiple desktops all the way. I actually miss that when I am using my Mac. I suppose I should try some of the virtual desktop solutions for OSX. Then again I use Expos� all the time.

[jamil5454]

The main reason Linux installs are so hard is because there are thousands of Linux distros out there. Linux developers cannot possibly guess which distro you have and therefore which dependencies in particular you may need, so they give you a list for you to do it manually.

But on the other hand, most distros come with some sort of package management system that makes this easy for you. In the case of Beagle, however, the software is so bleeding-edge new that requires the most up-to-date kernel and windowing system. The distributions haven't had a chance to incorporate Beagle into their package lists, and they probably won't until Beagle gets a little more stable.

If you still want Beagle on FC3, I suggest NOT GIVING UP!! When I first tried Linux, I got frustrated very fast when something wouldn't install. I found out as I went along that failed installs are normal and most likely have a logical solution. Reading more than one how-to for a specific task is necessary. Sometimes one step of Person A's install method may not work while another step of Person B's install method won't work. When you combine them together, you get something that works. So... never stop asking questions and don't give up trying to install Beagle if you really want it. Unless your time is valuable.