Rant, fixed.

master
Philippe PITTOLI 3 years ago
parent be8eeab6db
commit 87c1ddcb8c
  1. 0
      content/handbook/rant.fr.md
  2. 12
      content/handbook/rant.md

@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Still, this message tells us a couple of things:
2. ... but we **know how to provide the tool to you anyway**<br />
That part is weird.
Why don't you give me the package yourself then, since it will be installed on my machine regardless if someone tested it?
Why does another package manager does the job instead of the package manager of my OS?<br />
Why does another package manager do the job instead of the package manager of my OS?<br />
*Snap seems to be a good substitute to `apt`, <u>says `apt`</u>*<br />
Now I have 2 package managers, one for *supported* applications from my OS and the other by... no matter who, but hey they tell me it's secure and stuff.
Great!
@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ Let's check what's the developer has to say...
```
Snap notes
yq installs with with strict confinement in snap, this means it doesn't have direct access to root files.
yq installs with strict confinement in snap, this means it doesn't have direct access to root files.
```
*(Note: I'm not even in root files here.)*
@ -80,20 +80,20 @@ No.
I won't install an application designed to run virtual machines **just to read a file**.
Making it complicated to provide a simple application **written in a language design to deploy applications easily** is an un-human achievement.
Making it complicated to provide a simple application **written in a language designed to deploy applications easily** is an un-human achievement.
Thanks Cthulhu, I guess.
# Okay okay, let's try to answer this question: who's to blame here?
- The developer?<br />
He tried to provide its application for everybody, including poeple installing applications only through `snap` and `docker`.
He tried to provide its application for everybody, including people installing applications only through `snap` and `docker`.
AFAIK, at no point he is responsible for this mess.
- `Snap` and `Docker`?<br />
They respond to simple requests, they have a purpose.
**Some things were not possible on the different OSs, so they were developed.**
There was a need behind those.
- The original package manager...<br />
If there was a way to get my application, it **should have been** through the OS packager manager.
If there was a way to get my application, it **should have been** through the OS package manager.
Since it wasn't possible, I had to learn how to get the application from non trusted sources with a parasit application running over the very simple binary provided by the developer.
@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ To get the application I downloaded a binary version, compiled statically, direc
<u>Am I on Windows in the early 00's?</u>
Is my package manager still **useful**?
Another possibility would have to download the application from the package distribution of the language used.
Another possibility would have been to download the application from the package distribution of the language used.
How long has this practice been used?
That's just a way of skipping packaging for an OS.
Loading…
Cancel
Save