Maximum PC murphys law RSS Feed

Murphy's Law: Open-Source Distribution with WinPackMan's BennyP

David Murphy — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 15:00:31 -0500

If you've been following my articles as of late, you'll notice that I've been exploring (obsessing over) the world of Windows-based package managers. It's an interesting concept that the Linux world gets to enjoy to great success--the ability to download and install applications via a single program, much like how you would grab a song on iTunes or an application off its App Store.

In last week's Murphy's Law, I postulated that this exact combination of one-button glam plus a functional, community-driven application repository would be a surefire way to increase open-source awareness amongst average computer users. That, and it would offer power users a better way to grab, install, and manage large bundles of applications on any number of individual or networked PCs.

A number of you seemed to agree. That's great. But as we all saw in this week's freeware roundup, the state of the package manager market for the Windows operating system is tragic at best. It's difficult, if not impossible, to find a working package manager that fulfills the three main criteria for usefulness: updated applications, minimal downloading errors, and a halfway-decent GUI.

What's the holdup in Windows Package Manager development? Are they really that tricky to create and maintain? And why should users ultimately care about these kinds of applications? To get the answers to these tough questions, I turned to BennyP--creator and sole maintainer of the WinPackMan package manager application. He's currently caught up in bringing this once-popular piece of software back from the dead, making him an ideal candidate for learning more about what's going on in the trenches of third-party Windows package manager development

What about Windows -- either from a cultural or technological standpoint -- makes it so unfriendly for a unified downloading system?

BennyP: I think it is both cultural and technological. Linux more or less really requires a package manager -- there are lots of libraries and dependency nightmares that really require one. Windows tends not to have these dependencies for whatever reason -- I can install Firefox on a fresh Windows install without having to install anything else. So partly there's a bit less of a necessity.

There are also some technological details that are annoying that have to be overcome -- mostly, the lack of a really good set of standard tools and a powerful scripting language (think BASH and tools like awk and grep, although Windows batch files can be pretty powerful). The Windows registry just adds another layer of complication. There's also the problem of how to deal with software that's already installed -- AppSnap seemed to do this well. The package manager would need to bring these preinstalled programs under its control somehow. You don't really see this much in Linux, so it's kinda new territory. But these challenges aren't impossible to overcome.

If you were speaking to a random, average computer user, how would you convince them that they need to use a package manager?

BennyP: The biggest advantage of a package manager is the ability to keep programs up to date. Finding applications and initial installations are easier with one, of course. But often, after installing something, I tend not to keep it updated, especially things that don't update themselves.

I have 20 applications or so on my laptop that should be updated, but they work fine as they are. I could be missing out on new features and security patches, but we (myself included) are lazy and aren't going to check 20 or so websites daily or weekly to see if there's an update. Also, if all the software was free and/or open source, it would help people find what they need without going to commercial or ad-based software. A lot of people don't know about the great software out there like Pidgin, or GIMP, or OpenOffice.

Can you walk me through the process of developing WinPackMan? What have been some of the concerns and challenges in building the software?

BennyP: I came up with the idea after reinstalling Windows once (this was late 2005, I think). I had been playing with Linux for a while and I wondered if there was something similar for Windows, since I had to reinstall a bazillion programs. Surprisingly, there wasn't (although there is one commercial application called VersionTracker. Being a cheapskate, I haven't tried it).

So I started programming, except I'm not a programmer by trade so it was quite a learning experience. The first incarnation was, well, let's forget about that one. The second one (the latest one "available") was ok--it worked, but the code was still pretty rough. Just this last week I starting redoing much of the code after letting everything distill in my mind for a year or two, so we'll see if in a few weeks/months there can be something even better. I expected many people to develop their own, better ones in the meantime. But as you have seen, it really hasn't happened.

How do you address updates for package manager applications, be they updated URLs or the programs themselves?

BennyP: If you are familiar with Gentoo Linux, ebuilds are more or less my prototype. There are a set of text files (probably zipped/tarred) that the program downloads. Inside these text files are instructions for the package manager on how to install/uninstall/update it. It might be "download this file and run it with some options". But it could certainly be more complicated, especially for programs that don't have installers themselves. The harder parts are uninstalling and updating, but they would be handled much the same way. I think that's the easiest, but most flexible way.

What are your thoughts on integrating a community approach into the software by allowing users to submit links to software, or rate software. Is that feasible? Desirable?

BennyP: The community approach was actually there for me from the beginning. I'm only one man who does this as a hobby, and keeping a large repository of software up-to-date would need a community, particularly if the software developers themselves helped out in maintaining their own entries. But you kinda have to have something to show them first.

How do you handle security for package managers? What's to stop someone from spoofing or otherwise taking over a download link?

BennyP: I think it can be made relatively secure with a few ideas. First, each text file mentioned above contains MD5s (and maybe other checksums) for any file downloaded. Once the file is downloaded, it is checked to make sure everything adds up. This helps with security, but also helps make sure the file wasn't corrupted somehow. There's also the integration of a virus scanner--ClamAV would be easy to implement, but you also have the option to automatically run any user-installed virus scanner on everything downloaded. These take away a lot of the risk, but there will always be some.

Final Thoughts: Jerry Springer-style?

BennyP: A package manager is certainly possible under Windows--I had my working very-alpha very-rough version that actually downloaded and managed my few test packages, but the code was a bit substandard. Looking back, I don't know what I was thinking with some of that. Lately I've been moving towards a much more standard C++ code, as well as modifying some things that weren't implemented well. We'll see if it works the third time around.

Have any freeware programs to recommend? Want to chat open source? Hit me up on Twitter for that, as well as updates for the latest saga: "What happens when you drop an iPhone 3G into a large pool of water."

Murphy's Law: Microsoft's Restrictive Netbook Rules

David Murphy — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:00:00 -0500

Rules, rules, rules. It's one of the few things the open-source world has in common with its closed alternative. There are rules for downloading open-source projects. Rules for using open-source projects. Rules for distributing open-source projects. Rules for modify... ok. You get the idea.

It's one thing for open-source developers to define the legal parameters associated with the tinkering of their pet projects. That's the pill you swallow when you agree to download these bits of community-driven software. But that's also where the control factor ends. You can run open-source software on any platform you like. Depending on the parameters of the license, you can even populate your favorite open-source software applications to a new platform of your choosing--like a little bee in a digital garden, if you will.

Flying over the friendly skies of the closed-source world tells a different tale. Microsoft makes the rules here. Or, at least, as many rules as it can get away with making in relation to which of its operating systems you can use and how you can go about using them. Want to run a ton of programs at once? That's a license issue. Want access to additional functionality? Buy a better license. The list goes on, but it doesn't just end at the software level. A recent report has revealed Microsoft's intentions for Windows 7 in the netbook space, but this isn't the first time Microsoft has demanded that hardware manufacturers bow to a certain specification in order to bundle its operating systems along for the ride.

According Tech ARP, Microsoft has established the following maximum restrictions for any OEM vendor looking to package the Windows 7 Starter edition onto a netbook:

Screen size: 10.2 inches

Memory: 1 GB RAM

Storage: 250 GB HDD or 64 GB SSD

Graphics: no limitation

Touch: no limitation

CPU: Single-core processors that don't exceed 2 GHz in speed nor 15 W in power consumption

So, what happens if you want to slap Windows 7 on a netbook, but your device is beyond the specs that Microsoft's provided? Nothing. Nothing at all. You can run a version of Windows 7 on any netbook. That's not the point. The restrictions primarily affect vendors shipping netbooks with Windows 7 pre-installed. In this case, their products will have to slide under the spec if they want to include the bare-bones version of Windows 7 as the OS of choice. Otherwise, it's an upgrade to Windows7 Home Premium -- still discounted in some fashion for the vendor, but shipped at a higher price than Windows 7 Starter. And if you expect said vendor to just eat the costs of the mandatory upgrade, I have a copy of Duke Nukem Forever I'd like to sell you.

While this hardware mandate might seem be a eye-opening at first, it really shouldn't be. Microsoft has already pulled this routine with Windows XP in the ultra-low-cost-portable-computer market--or "netbooks." It started out by restricting XP Home bundles to netbooks with a screen size of 10 inches or less, as well as a maximum memory of 1GB and a processor no speedier than a single core, 1.0 GHz CPU. Touchscreen-based netbooks were right out, as were any netbooks with hard drives larger than 80GB.

Microsoft eventually relaxed the restrictions, bumping up the screen size and hard drive capacity limitations. Touchscreens were even allowed to frolic in the OEM fields of Windows XP. The barrier remained for processor speeds and memory capacities, although microsoft began to let a few exceptions slip past the gate.

The restrictions on CPUs and RAM continue with the latest revision to the hardware specifications. Microsoft has settled on a 12.1-inch maximum screen size for Windows XP and Windows Vista-based OEM netbooks. The storage capacity limit for netbooks with hard drives sits at 160 GB, nearly two-thirds less than those for Windows 7 netbooks. Solid-state drives cannot run any larger than 32 GB. The same processor restrictions are in place as before--single-core CPUs running at a frequency of 1 GHz or less--although Microsoft has carved out a number of exceptions to the rule (including a swath of Intel Atom processors). Touchscreen netbooks are alright so long as they only operate using resistive touch technologies.

What a complicated mess.

It's bad enough that Microsoft offers such a stratified portfolio of features and options for its operating systems. But that's a practice that the market has come to accept. If you want fancy Windows elements to show off to your friends, or increased enterprise functionality, you're going to have to pony up for a more comprehensive version of the operating system. And while it makes sense from a business standpoint that Microsoft wants to keep netbooks as far away from the general Vista base as possible, restricting the sales of operating systems based on hardware requirements only hurts consumers in the long run.

This practice ensures a general stagnation of the netbook market. Vendors will think twice about push past Microsoft's limitations for fear of losing their cheaper Windows licensing options--or, in the case of Windows XP and Vista, the ability to slap Windows onto a netbook altogether. Vendors that want to release a powerful, portable system will not only have to put up for the costs of the hardware, but they'll also be forced to deal with a more expensive version of the operating system as a result of Microsoft's restrictive hardware requirements.

To be fair, Windows 7 starter is so stripped down and locked (allegedly) that the additional upgrade might be considered a blessing in disguise. And I can't envision that many mainstream netbook users will be thrilled to go up against the Windows 7 Starter limitation of no more than three concurrent programs running at one time. But that's a software choice. If Microsoft wants to release 99 versions of its operating system, each promising one additional application launch for every successive upgrade your purchase, that's fine. That's their right. Fire away. But it's unfortunate that this level of control from Microsoft has spilled over into the hardware market as well. Last I checked, Linux didn't come with a list of rules.

Murphy's Law: Is Linux Really at a One Percent Adoption Rate?

David Murphy — Wed, 06 May 2009 20:00:00 -0500

I normally stay out of the Linux conversations because it's like placing oneself between two packs of rabid, fanboy wolves. Not that being enthusiastic about your operating system of choice is a bad thing. It's just a lot of flame to handle for one meager columnist.

That said, I couldn't help but notice a number of articles passing around the Web this week, praising Linux for pushing past the one-percent adoption rate for desktop operating systems. Huh? One percent? That's like throwing a ticker-tape parade for a one-year-old. I mean, kudos to Linux for making it this far and all, but I think that people are selectively focusing on the "concept" of the number a bit too much. Because when you dig a little bit deeper into the statistics, you'll find that Linux's big "Achievement Unlocked" isn't really that big of a deal at all.

It's the name, stupid.

When we talk about Linux, it's often just that. Linux. Be it Linux for your desktop or Linux for your server farm, Linux is Linux. Would you run Windows XP on an enterprise Web server? No. You would use an operating system featuring a different name, one that's sure to distinguish it from Windows' consumer-focused versions. But what about Linux? You'd run some variant of Linux, definitely, but you'd be correct in just calling it Linux.

Why is this important? Because when reports come out that suggest Linux has a one percent adoption rate, you might be tempted to write that off as Linux in its entirety. In actuality, the figures that Net Applications are quoting only consider the operating systems of typical desktop machines. While a number of reports on the data adequately disclose this fact, it's still an easy mistake to make if you just happened to scan a headline and see, "Linux at One Percent!"

And of these figures, you have no idea of the sample size, nor the profiles of the individuals being sampled. I'm not suggesting at Net Applications is wrong, and that the figure for Linux desktop adoption is in the twenties or something. Nevertheless, other sites that survey batches of users peg the Linux adoption rate a little bit higher than one percent. Are we surveying your average Best Buy shoppers? Are we surveying IT geeks? Who's right? I don't know. And another question to throw into the mix: How might this number change if we toss laptops and netbooks into the picture? And how does the survey qualify dual-boot users?

It's the server, stupid

Going back to my original point for a moment, the one-percent figure somehow suggests that Linux is barely scraping by. While this might be true on consumer machines, I think it's erroneous to ignore the impact of Linux in the enterprise market. IDC estimates that Linux-based enterprise software sales will reach $35.5 billion by 2013. While that's still quite a ways away from the projected Microsoft-based software sales--206 billion--the growth rate for Linux software is expected to outpace the general market growth by five times. Microsoft software sales will barely keep pace.

It's difficult to break this number down into the raw, mano-a-mano competition of total Linux server environments versus total Microsoft-based server environment in the enterprise market. But I can guarantee that the number of Linux servers in existence is greater than one percent. And were we to take enterprise hardware into account, I believe that Linux would appear to have a far greater showing than the paltry one percent (or thereabouts) figure quoted for the desktop market. I realize that wasn't the point of the original survey. The original survey cared about desktop machines and desktop machines only. But why are we limiting to this isolated definition of Linux OS installs? It would sure be nice to have a little bit more to celebrate, that's all. I mean, when's the last time you saw a pre-built desktop machine being offered with a Linux OS instead of a Windows-based one anyway?

It's the statistics, stupid.

More interesting to me than Linux's alleged one percent adoption rate are the growth curves presented by Net Applications' data. It took Linux nearly a year to carve out an additional .2 percent of the market. At this rate, we'll all be dust in the wind by the time Linux takes one-fourth of the desktop market share, assuming the figures keep tracking along the same growth pattern. While the adoption rate of Microsoft Windows fell nearly three percent over the past ten months, Apple became the leech for 2.8 percent of those users. Were we to lump all of the Windows refugees into a pile, Apple would have pulled 86 percent to Linux's 14 percent. That's practically a six-to-one ratio.

The most compelling story isn't Linux's big jump into single-digits (on the left side of the decimal, that is). I'd keep my eye out on Apple if you want to see evidence of solid, market-affecting growth. Outside of the enterprise market, Linux just isn't growing in the mindset of your average consumer--provided the numbers and survey samples match up, that is.

So what's the takeaway? Don't believe everything you read (Desktop Linux adoption rate is at one percent), don't ignore a sizeable market to assume the sky is falling (Enterprise Linux is pretty big), and even if the numbers all pan out in the end, don't believe that Linux's one percent accomplishment is anything significant (Time to buy Apple stock?).