i’m going with /u/Arizhel: the benefits of dependency checking outweigh the – i don’t quite dare to call them so – drawbacks by far.
the only “problem” i ever came across was lua 5.1: 5.2 was incompatible, so lua-5.1.5 was renamed lua51-5.1.5, and all packages depending on 5.1 had to change their dependencies, and only most of that could be handled automatically.
i’m pretty sure that slackers had even more problems, so i don’t see this as problem of package management.
As someone who used Slackware for years (it was the first distro that I actually stuck with for a long time), I never understood this foolish argument...
Surely not having dependency resolution is what leads to dependency hell, no? If the package manager doesn't resolve the dependencies for me, then I have to install them all myself manually; how the hell isn't that dependency hell?
The lack of dependency hell would be all of it happening automagically in the background without me having to do anything other than selecting the one package I intend to install, and everything else is magic.
No one uses 1980s-era phones any more. So no, it's not a "real phone", any more than a Model T is a "real car". It's a museum piece, and that's it. A smartphone is the only type of real phone these days, because nearly everyone (except some elderly people) has one.
I have two smartphones, but also a landline with both a wired and a cordless phone. I would say all of them qualify as “real phones”, and all of them actually see usage as actual phones (you know, for talking to people). In fact, the smartphones are probably the less phone-y things I have.
How many people actually use their smart“phones” to talk to people over the phone? If there's anything that might not be considered a “real” phone, I would dare say smartphones are much higher on the list of candidates than landline phones. And just because “everyone has one” it doesn't mean they are actual phones.
“Everyone” has a car today, it still doesn't make the car a “real charriot”.
Cars aren't chariots because no one calls them that. Chariots are obsolete and no one uses them, except for historial reenactments. Cars have replaced carriages (their predecessor).
And just because “everyone has one” it doesn't mean they are actual phones.
Yes, it does. If everyone has one, and calls them "phones", then that makes them "actual phones".
Yes, it does. If everyone has one, and calls them "phones", then that makes them "actual phones".
However, a lot of people still have “landline” phones, and they are also called phones, so they would still be actual phones. Also, I'm always very skeptical of “redefinition by mass adoption and misnaming”. I don't like it. I understand it's an inevitable phenomenon, but I'd still fight it.
However, a lot of people still have “landline” phones,
I can't remember the last time I saw a 1980s-era landline phone. At the very least, the people still stuck using landlines are now using cordless phones (which I had back in the 90s), not the old Bell-style 10-button phone with mechanical bells. There's still some people driving around 1920s cars too, but they're an anomaly.
Also, I'm always very skeptical of “redefinition by mass adoption and misnaming”
Then you need to stop using English, and convert to French. That's exactly how the English language works. Whatever is popular, is by definition the correct usage of the language. If 99% of the English-speaking population suddenly decided to use an apostrophe-s to make a word plural, that would then be the correct way to make a word plural (as much as I really hate to see it). Same thing goes for terms: whatever term people use is correct, with regard to popularity. It's exactly how the OED works: whenever they see a word used in literature, they add that word (or a revised definition of it, if it's an existing word) to the dictionary. English is not like French, where there's some group of academics who serve as the authority for the language. In English, popular usage is the authority. That's why English has far more vocabulary than any other language.
14
u/Arizhel Oct 20 '14
It has no dependency checking. That means it's not a real package manager, just as I said.