#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit mac os
#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit install
#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit update
#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit software
#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit download

#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit mac os

I also like the Mac OS way, but only a little bit.

#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit download

With “FLOSS” – wether under Debian or Arch – I just type in the name of the app I want and do _one_ click / enter key press! I don’t download stuff, I don’t click Next, Next, Next, the uninstaller doesn’t uninstall every file touched while installation, … Windows constantly has problems with overwritten DLLs and needs bullshit tricks like permanently copying system files over on boot etc.

#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit install

I found all the install shield crap under Windows was _really_ nasty and disturbing.

#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit software

but feel free to speak up if there are others.Īll in all, as always its a question of usability vs security…Īre you kidding? Did you ever try Debian or Arch Linux? Or on the other hand, did you ever install software on Windows? so unless all dependent programs are then updated, you may result the install of one program breaking another.Ībout the only linux distro i know of that allow for this is gobolinux. Then you get the ease of distribution in combo with the security of a single lib, because even if the lib package is included in the meta package, it do not have to be installed unless its a more recent version then the one already installed, or the lib is not already present.īut i wonder, does rpm allow for different versions of the same package to be installed at the same time? as that is a different, yet related kind of “dependency hell”.įor sometimes when a lib is updated it for some reason breaks compatibility with older versions. one that contains not only the individual program or lib, but each package needed for installing said program.

#Paragon driver for windows 10 64 bit update

this also benefits security as when there is a exploit found in a library you only have to update one time to fix the problem. this makes distribution of software simple in that you just have to download one self contained file most often.įor open source based programs that will just waste space as most use the same libs anyways. Im not sure sure how much there is to learn.Īpple and microsoft makes it simpler by allowing the individual program to pack its own versions of the different libs it uses. I’ve always thought that Apple and MS could learn a lot about the benefits of centralized package management and shared libraries. Sad but true, Linux and FLOSS could really learn from Apple and Microsoft when it comes to packaging software. And RPM (or dpkg) alone as a de facto package manager doesn’t solve the fundamental differences among how distros layout their directory structure and even their own package naming conventions/versioning when it comes to dependencies etc.ĭeciding on a format isn’t the problem, it’s trying to convince the distros to make any necessary infrastructure changes to accomodate it as a universal solution. Apt-get can work as easily with rpms as with debs. RPM’s can be converted to debs and installed on Debian. Package formats, package management tools, and distro package management infrastructures.

Debian was part of that committee.Īt any rate, there are several issues being confused. The LSB established RPM as the de facto package format for compliant distros. That all distros got together over a single package format, namely apt-get with any improvements (if there are any) brought in from the likes of RPM. Maybe they’re not such a good idea after all. Big unified repositorieS(!) already exist (for example OpenPKG is rpm-based) but nobody seems to use them. Yes is it rpm itself they are addressing or finally a big unified repository or both? It has something to do with recently-introduced persistent futexes in Linux, and it’s fixed by the “upstream” RPM of Jeff Johnson, but no distro incorporates that version because of some former disagreement with the author.Īnyways all the “actual” package managers you mention rely on and use rpmlib. I don’t know what distribution you use, but on Fedora RPM these days barely works, just look at the Red Hat Bugzilla, it has over 100 recent bug reports of RPM segfaulting, hanging, and so on. I always thought the package is basically “dead” and most interest lies in the actual package managers such as SMART, apt-get, YUM and adding features to them(speed, version control, rolling back, better updating of the system, etc.). I know Yum is dog-slow but that is a problem with Yum, not RPM itself as evidenced by the speed of aptrpm. Isn’t RPM just a package format? In all my years using RPM, I have never had any problems, nor have I ever felt like that I am really missing something.