Skip to main content

Ubuntu Packages Please Get Your Act Together

I didn't intend to write another blog entry so close to the conclusion of my Week with Go series, but my experiences earlier today definitely warranted a rant. Installing the SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine for use as a stand-alone interpreter on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS doesn't sound like outlandish goal. After all, CouchDB ships by default as of 9.10 and it requires a JavaScript run-time. Technologies like node.js and v8 are pretty hot right now so there might even be a few alternatives to choose from, right? WRONG!
sudo apt-get install spidermonkey-bin
E: Couldn't find package spidermonkey-bin
There used to be such a package but apparently SpiderMonkey is "unsupported" now and was removed from the Universe repository.

Sorry Ubuntu. I'm not feeling the love for Rhino. It doesn't do JIT and runs slower than a one-legged sloth. Besides, I don't feel like installing ca-certificates-java, default-jre-headless, icedtea-6-jre-cacao, java-common, libavahi-client3, libavahi-common-data, libavahi-common3, libcups2, libjline-java, liblcms1, libnspr4-0d, libnss3-1d, openjdk-6-jre-headless, openjdk-6-jre-lib, and tzdata-java on my system.

I thought about installing it from source but then I'd lose the benefits all the experts say I get from using packages*. After a bit of searching I found some developer rolled a package that is available from a Launchpad PPA, so all I'd have to do is just add the repository!
$ sudo add-apt-repository ppa:launchpad/ppa
sudo: add-apt-repository: command not found
Sigh. add-apt-repository is provided by the package python-software-properties. The intuitiveness of it all is underwhelming.

It's great that PPAs exist and people volunteer their time to maintain them to fill the gap, but Ubuntu needs to pull its head out of its ass and get its act together. Ubuntu gained popularity because people were pissed at Red Hat, not by emulating OSX with moving its close buttons, adding boring purple artwork, or the Dropbox rip-off called Ubuntu One. It needs to focus on solving real problems, like developing better package identification/search solutions, finding better ways to convey information and their rational when dropping support for packages, and making the entire system user-friendly. If Ubuntu keeps disrespecting the needs of its user base then it's only a matter of time until the popularity-torch is passed to another distro.

* Benefits include unexpected dropped support, irrelevant dependencies and symlinks puked all over the system, inconsistent packaging conventions, headaches, dry-mouth, and an occasional ulcer.

Comments

  1. Not sure why you say it's a Ubuntu issue? This seems like a upstream issue.

    If you don't want to install the package which houses add-apt-repository (it's installed by default), then just add the package manually.

    Your ranting won't go anywhere to fix the problem. Make a suggestion, provide a patch, add a question, beat up a MOTU - do something constructive to get it back in the repository - seems Alexander Sack is the one to hit up.

    It also seems to be an issue in other distros too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. add-apt-repository was not installed on my system and its package name wasn't remotely intuitive. But you bring up a good point... I may need to hit up a MOTU.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's another example...

    $ wineprefixcreate
    The program 'wineprefixcreate' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing:
    sudo apt-get install wine1.2
    $ sudo apt-get install wine1.2
    Reading package lists... Done
    Building dependency tree
    Reading state information... Done
    wine1.2 is already the newest version.

    sigh.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Composing Music with PHP

I’m not an expert on probability theory, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. And even my Music 201 class from years ago has been long forgotten. But if you’ll indulge me for the next 10 minutes, I think you’ll find that even just a little knowledge can yield impressive results if creatively woven together. I’d like to share with you how to teach PHP to compose music. Here’s an example: You’re looking at a melody generated by PHP. It’s not the most memorable, but it’s not unpleasant either. And surprisingly, the code to generate such sequences is rather brief. So what’s going on? The script calculates a probability map of melodic intervals and applies a Markov process to generate a new sequence. In friendlier terms, musical data is analyzed by a script to learn which intervals make up pleasing melodies. It then creates a new composition by selecting pitches based on the possibilities it’s observed. . Standing on Shoulders Composition doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Bach wa

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about