Quote:
Originally Posted by Willrimmer
Ih99....
You're too reasonable!!
::head exploads::
Except for the frothing at the mouth paranoia about null river when they have clearly demonstrated their commitment to this community, you are very correct.
A tip of the hat to your mostly balanced point.
|
Yeah, I could have gone a bit lighter on the Nullriver (and now, apparently RipDev) criticism, but I don't really regret it. It's nice to see that RipDev is providing some information about the upcoming release, design decisions, progress, etc. What I never liked about Nullriver/Installer is how it just appeared from nowhere, with virtually no documentation, no project roadmap, etc. There's one crummy page on NullRiver's site about it that's very vague. Most of what we know about it is from people using/exploring it. This hasn't really changed much since those early days. The only reason Installer became so popular is that no one was able to (or found the time to) create a worthy competitor, until recently. And yes, I remember (and used in place of Installer) the short-lived PLX/Breezy/Shimmer project.
I really do like how the Dev Team (and Saurik specifically) actually talk about what's going on, why they're doing it, what problems they're having, etc. This may not mean a lot to the casual user who doesn't understand how programming/hacking works, but it means a whole lot to me. I like knowing what I'm installing, rather than just blindly loading whatever binaries look interesting.
I'm still upset with Nullriver for never following through with their promise to make Installer open-source. There are certain things that make sense to be closed-source, but an app like Installer does not. It's not like there's any really secret technology in use in Installer; there are plenty of open source apps that have similar navigation, features, etc (Cydia, for example). I can't think of a reason to keep it closed other than future plans to add AppStore-like purchasing features or monthly usage charges (either of which might explain RipDev's involvement). That's fine if they want to start incorporating a fees-based model, but I think most of us who want to buy apps will buy them through the AppStore, and most devs will want to sell there too due to the much larger audience. I've considered buying things like Kate and Intelliscreen before, but I value the Apple updates over these mods and don't want to end up having to choose between the next firmware update and a 3rd party hack I already paid for.
Why does open-source matter? I guess it's more idealism on my part (and many others), but in a small development community (especially one at the mercy of Apple's whims at all times), sharing of information is crucial for developers to continue to improve their software and keep pace with firmware updates. It just makes for better software. If Installer were open-source, the unofficial iPhone developers could review and improve the code as they find issues working with it. Since Installer is a community app (it supports applications from hundreds of developers), doesn't it make sense for those developers to have input into the program that installs their apps? Right now, they can just email Nullriver/RipDev and hope that they have the time to work on something eventually. Cydia solves all of these problems. Even if it's not perfect yet, it'll get updated and improve faster than Installer simply because it's open-source (and now it's being heavily used in Installer's absence).
Quote:
Originally Posted by zauriel
Why is "eye candy" unnecessary? A well designed GUI to compliment the guts is not unnecessary, rather it is quite essential. Maybe you should tell Apple that they shouldn't spend time on their "eye candy" either and just put the iPhone out there with no bells or whistles. Screw the glass and aluminum! Give us a scrap metal iPhone!
|
Don't get me wrong, I like my fair share of "pretty" GUI's, such as OS X and Delicious Library (which is full of eye candy). But there's a place for fancy graphics, and there's a place for efficiency. An package manager should be functional first and attractive second. Also, don't confuse flashy graphics and reflections with usability. There are plenty of apps out there that look great, but clearly weren't designed to be easy to use. Apple's design process focuses on identifying why, how, and where someone will use a given product, then they figure out what features/functions are necessary and how to organize them to make them dead-simple and efficient to use. Compare any Apple product to the competition and you'll see the difference between a process that focuses on features and a process that focuses on the user experience. An of course it has to look beautiful, but not at the expense of performance or usability.
For the record, Apple has made a few missteps along the way, such as the hockey puck mouse and the reflective dock in OS X Leopard, but they're pretty good as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zauriel
So Cydia is working on something that Installer had. And Installer is working on stuff the improve upon its previous incarnations that Cydia does. What's your point? Competition results in better programs for us all.
|
No point much beyond that, but right now Cydia has a lot of the features Installer should have, and Installer only has a couple of features Cydia should have (my opinion, of course). From the looks of it, they're basically rewriting Installer from the ground up to make all of the necessary improvements, so I don't see how past versions of Installer will predict in any way how Installer 4.0 will work. It'll probably be buggy. It might even be missing features you liked from Installer 3. I haven't used 4.0, so I don't know, but you can't expect it the experience to be exactly the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zauriel
Why do you assume that everyone who likes Installer isn't smart enough to realize that just because they get this new version working on 2.0, it won't contain all the apps listed back on 1.1.4? That's mighty pretentious of you. I certainly can't speak for everyone out there, but I want Installer. Itself. You're right, it does suck to check multiple locations for updates. Which is why as soon as Installer 4 is ready and hosting packages, I will be downloading everything I want from there, and the only things I will be downloading from Cydia are things I can't get from Installer, same as I did on 1.1.4. Installer was there first, and they've been hard at work on getting this new version running. Cydia is not going to supplant it. But don't stop dreaming big.
|
Just tell me, other than the apparent "brand loyalty" that Installer has because it was first, why? Can you give us a specific reason? Aside from being able to add sources (which has already been discussed enough for me), what does Installer bring to the table that Cydia doesn't? I haven't seen a single post that identifies a specific advantage. Stability does not count -- no one knows how stable the new Installer is going to be yet.
From my perspective, and I've been using both package managers since they first came out, most of the differences are cosmetic. Cydia has a much better "Changes" screen. Installer lets you add apps to a queue (which gets screwed up if something in the queue fails to install, but it's still nice). Other than that, what differences are there? The new Cydia icon is, in my opinion, as nice as Installer's. So unless you hate brown for some reason, what's so great about Installer?
Since I haven't seen any logical arguments for Installer, I have to assume that most of its proponents want the apps it used to have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zauriel
Why not accuse the Installer folks of clubbing baby seals while you're at it? It's easy to start throwing around accusations that have no basis in reality. I mean, what if Cydia started requiring you to enter in your social security number in order to use it?!?!1!
|
Granted, but if Cydia did start doing shady stuff, at least I could create my own branch of the code that didn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zauriel
Yes. Yes I am. And I'd thank you kindly not to advise me what I am or am not waiting for and why. Stick to your own opinions on the Installer/Cydia battle, rather than talk down to those that don't like the program you back. If you like Cydia, great. Use it. Promote it. Whatever. Just don't treat those of us that prefer Installer like children who don't know what's going on.
|
What would be great is if Installer just used the same repository format that Cydia does, rendering this whole discussion moot. They probably won't do it, but if they did, users could select between Cydia and Installer based on features, not application availability. I just really want to see everything in one place (OK, two places including the AppStore). This makes things easier for developers and users alike and if Nullriver/RipDev are truly dedicated to the community as you think they are, they would find a way to cooperate with Cydia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentfubu
Am I the only one who finds this somewhat... ugly?
The graphics look almost cheesy and way too big for me.
|
Agreed, I don't like it at all. The icons/layout lack taste and look like the kind of thing I'm used to seeing on Windows. Not really ugly, but not well thought out. What benefit could these huge icons have?
07-27-2008, 07:01 AM
I don't harbor any ill will towards the developers of Installer or its supporters, I'm just trying to express my opinion that Installer, while a great resource in its day, isn't necessary anymore. You're right, there is room for two packagers -- they coexisted in the 1.1.x era. I really don't want to see Cydia, a great project, fall through the cracks solely on the account of Installer's name recognition, though.
Linear Mode
