Joe Brockmeier: Autopackage 1.0. lwn.net, 30. März 2005, abgerufen am 24. Januar 2012 (englisch): „Overall, Autopackage is a very promising project. It makes it possible for third-parties to distribute software for Linux users […] It’s too bad that such a system is still necessary at this time, but it fills a necessary gap until the day that Linux distributions can settle on a standard base system and packaging format.“
nuget.org
docs.nuget.org
Nuspec Reference. Abgerufen am 7. August 2013 (englisch, NuGet-Dokumentation für NuSpec-Pakete).
plus.google.com
Ingo Molnar: Technology: What ails the Linux desktop? Part I. plus.google.com, 17. März 2012, abgerufen am 16. Juni 2012: „Desktop Linux distributions are trying to „own“ 20 thousand application packages consisting of over a billion lines of code and have created parallel, mostly closed ecosystems around them. The typical update latency for an app is weeks for security fixes (sometimes months) and months (sometimes years) for major features. They are centrally planned, hierarchical organizations instead of distributed, democratic free societies.[…]the exact opposite direction: Apple/iOS and Google/Android consist of around a hundred tightly integrated core packages only, managed as a single well-focused project. Those are developed and QA-ed with 10 times the intensity of the 10,000 packages that Linux distributions control. It is a lot easier to QA 10 million lines of code than to QA 1000 million lines of code.“
Tony Mobily: 2009: software installation in GNU/Linux still broken and a path to fixing it. www.freesoftwaremagazine.com, 23. Juni 2009, archiviert vom Original am 26. Juni 2009; abgerufen am 23. März 2010 (englisch): „Every GNU/Linux distribution at the moment (including Ubuntu) confuses system software with end user software, whereas they are two very different beasts which should be treated very, very differently.“
Simon Peter: AppImageKit Documentation 1.0. (PDF; 38 kB) PortableLinuxApps.org, 2010, S. 2–3, archiviert vom Original am 29. November 2010; abgerufen am 29. Juli 2011 (englisch): „Not easy to move an app from one machine to another: If you’ve used an app on one machine and decide that you would like to use the same app either under a different base operating system (say, you want to use OpenOffice on Fedora after having used it on Ubuntu) or if you would simply take the app from one machine to another (say from the desktop computer to the netbook), you have to download and install the app again (if you did not keep around the installation files and if the two operating systems don’t share the exact same package format - both of which is rather unlikely).“
Eric Brown: LSB 4.0 certifications aim to heal Linux fragmentation. linuxfordevices.com, 8. Dezember 2010, archiviert vom Original am 24. Dezember 2013; abgerufen am 16. November 2011 (englisch): „The LSB spec outlines interoperability between applications and the Linux operating system, "allowing application developers to target multiple versions of Linux with just one software package," says the LF. Launched in the late '90s, the LSB working group released its first major LSB 1.1 specification in 2001. […]“
Pjotr Prins, Jeeva Suresh, and Eelco Dolstra: Nix fixes dependency hell on all Linux distributions. linux.com, 22. Dezember 2008, archiviert vom Original am 8. Juli 2015; abgerufen am 2. Mai 2015 (englisch): „The problems: destructive upgrades, software versioning, heterogenous environments. All popular package managers, including APT, RPM and the FreeBSD Ports Collection, suffer from the problem of destructive upgrades. When you perform an upgrade -- whether for a single application or your entire operating system -- the package manager will overwrite the files that are currently on your system with newer versions. As long as packages are always perfectly backward-compatible, this is not a problem, but in the real world, packages are anything but perfectly backward-compatible.“
Ian Murdock: Software installation on Linux: Today, it sucks (part 1). ianmurdock.com, 21. Juli 2007, archiviert vom Original am 3. April 2015; abgerufen am 1. Mai 2015 (englisch): „If it’s in your distro of choice, you’re only an apt-get or a yum install away from running it. But if not, you’d better know what you’re doing, have a lot of patience, and understand how to construct effective Google search terms. (And, no, moving everything into the distribution is not a very good option. Remember that one of the key tenets of open source is decentralization, so if the only solution is to centralize everything, there’s something fundamentally wrong with this picture.)“
Benjamin Smedberg: Is Ubuntu an Operating System? 4. Oktober 2006, abgerufen am 20. Januar 2012 (englisch): „Ubuntu isn’t trying to be a platform for mass-market application software: it is trying to be the primary provider of both the operating system and all the application software that a typical user would want to run on his machine. Most Linux distributions are like this, and I think it is a dangerous trend that will stifle innovation and usability, or even worse make the desktop irrelevant.“
Tony Mobily: 2009: software installation in GNU/Linux still broken and a path to fixing it. www.freesoftwaremagazine.com, 23. Juni 2009, archiviert vom Original am 26. Juni 2009; abgerufen am 23. März 2010 (englisch): „Every GNU/Linux distribution at the moment (including Ubuntu) confuses system software with end user software, whereas they are two very different beasts which should be treated very, very differently.“
Simon Peter: AppImageKit Documentation 1.0. (PDF; 38 kB) PortableLinuxApps.org, 2010, S. 2–3, archiviert vom Original am 29. November 2010; abgerufen am 29. Juli 2011 (englisch): „Not easy to move an app from one machine to another: If you’ve used an app on one machine and decide that you would like to use the same app either under a different base operating system (say, you want to use OpenOffice on Fedora after having used it on Ubuntu) or if you would simply take the app from one machine to another (say from the desktop computer to the netbook), you have to download and install the app again (if you did not keep around the installation files and if the two operating systems don’t share the exact same package format - both of which is rather unlikely).“
Eric Brown: LSB 4.0 certifications aim to heal Linux fragmentation. linuxfordevices.com, 8. Dezember 2010, archiviert vom Original am 24. Dezember 2013; abgerufen am 16. November 2011 (englisch): „The LSB spec outlines interoperability between applications and the Linux operating system, "allowing application developers to target multiple versions of Linux with just one software package," says the LF. Launched in the late '90s, the LSB working group released its first major LSB 1.1 specification in 2001. […]“
Pjotr Prins, Jeeva Suresh, and Eelco Dolstra: Nix fixes dependency hell on all Linux distributions. linux.com, 22. Dezember 2008, archiviert vom Original am 8. Juli 2015; abgerufen am 2. Mai 2015 (englisch): „The problems: destructive upgrades, software versioning, heterogenous environments. All popular package managers, including APT, RPM and the FreeBSD Ports Collection, suffer from the problem of destructive upgrades. When you perform an upgrade -- whether for a single application or your entire operating system -- the package manager will overwrite the files that are currently on your system with newer versions. As long as packages are always perfectly backward-compatible, this is not a problem, but in the real world, packages are anything but perfectly backward-compatible.“
Ian Murdock: Software installation on Linux: Today, it sucks (part 1). ianmurdock.com, 21. Juli 2007, archiviert vom Original am 3. April 2015; abgerufen am 1. Mai 2015 (englisch): „If it’s in your distro of choice, you’re only an apt-get or a yum install away from running it. But if not, you’d better know what you’re doing, have a lot of patience, and understand how to construct effective Google search terms. (And, no, moving everything into the distribution is not a very good option. Remember that one of the key tenets of open source is decentralization, so if the only solution is to centralize everything, there’s something fundamentally wrong with this picture.)“
