36

@airdrik
That's exactly my opinion.

airdrik wrote:(...)

On the other hand, it isn't the most intuitive for new users who want to install Amarok that you have to go find the KDE for windows package manager to install Amarok and its dependencies. They want to go to Amarok's site and download the Amarok installer to install Amarok. The suggestion would be for the installer to be extended to allow an Amarok (or other KDE app) installer which installs (via the main KDE installer) that app and its dependencies. Then you can have an Amarok installer, a KOffice installer, a KDE games installer, etc. all of which use the base KDE installer for the package management but bypass some of the irrelevant settings to install just that app and its dependencies.

Nice too.

But there's still the obligation to download everything in every machine you want to install the program. I personally don't like small installers which download the rest of the program during installation.

The installer can install from local directories.

The User wrote:The installer can install from local directories.

In a intuitive, user-friendly way? Or, probably, I missed that feature coming.

Currently you have to choose between installation from local files and installation from a server.

OK, then.

I'll wait until I get my hands on a Windows installation.

It's not user-friendly, that's certainly true.

You all have to remember that one great advantage of Windows installers is that they mostly work offline. Now that may not be much of an issue in 1st world countries where the internet is everywhere, but in poorer countries or those with more expensive bandwidth Windows installers beat package managers because you can download something once, put it on a cd and give it to all your friends/classmates.

When you tell a user you use Amarok they will go to the Amarok website and be completely puzzled as to why they cant just download an installer, because that is what they are used to.

A friend decided recently to randomly install a bunch of KDE stuff on a (half-broken) school computer.

There's no way he could've done it with separate installations.

Why? It's nothing to do with the technical reasons - it's to do with the branding. Amarok might be famous by itself, but the rest is seen under the umbrella term KDE. It was simple to go to the KDE website, and find out from there instead of being presented a huge choice of previously unknown applications.

As for the technical side, he found it a breeze to install too. Uncomplicated and though he had never used a package manager in his life, it wasn't a problem.

@anoneemouse
When there are missing dependencies you will always have to download stuff from the internet...

@The user:This is why you have a base package with all dependencies, like a framework package. Java does it, .net does it... It kinda works. .Net also keeps multiple framework versions... which also helps.

@Moult: I am by no means saying the package manager should be thrown out. Heres an example: I was trying to give KDE educational applications to someone because they were impressed by the games for their daughter. They have a 56K Internet connection, the package manager downloads 500 megabytes of packages. This makes distribution without Internet difficult. As far as the branding is concerned I believe that even though KDE branding is important I think applications can make a name for themselves if they can break off a bit, as Amarok did.

@anoneemouse
The package manager can install from local directory.
So when you want to install KDE on a computer without internet: Copy the temporary directory to an USB-stick and install from these files on the target-machine.