http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/item/19644/
[639 votes] Solution #1: Prompt for installation of the appropriate compression program


[40 votes] Solution #2: Auto install .7z only


[97 votes] Solution #3: Install unrar-free by default


[251 votes] Solution #4: 7-zip in the default install


[-30 votes] Solution #5: PeaZip Archiver Program


[24 votes] Solution #6: Create modular archiving program


]]> en-us Tue, 05 May 2009 14:16:00 +0000 Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:21:35 +0000 QAPoll module http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/19644/
The less times we send the user to the CLI or even Synaptic, the better.]]> Tue, 05 May 2009 18:19:54 +0000
Generally I like the idea about a suggested package which can read currently unreadable file types - this is great about free software: there is nearly for everything anything - problem is you just don't know it and this kinda solution may lead you to the wanted software.]]> Tue, 05 May 2009 22:36:16 +0000 Also, it should be able to detect the version of RAR format, because unrar-free can't open most recent RAR format archives (maybe 7zip can ?).]]> Mon, 11 May 2009 15:07:31 +0000 Wed, 13 May 2009 12:04:32 +0000 Sat, 16 May 2009 13:31:58 +0000
To not install the rar compressor because rar is not free OK, bu to not install the rar decompressor is ridiculous and will not change anything (except that people are angry to not be able to decompress rar files !)]]> Sat, 16 May 2009 23:13:14 +0000 Mon, 18 May 2009 02:29:51 +0000 Mon, 18 May 2009 03:32:12 +0000 Mon, 18 May 2009 03:36:14 +0000 Tue, 19 May 2009 05:50:57 +0000
If the decompression program is installed > it decompresses
If the compression program is installed > it compresses

So get this right. You didn't looked at the current state of the archiving tools in ubuntu.. Hmm..]]> Tue, 19 May 2009 08:02:20 +0000
Yes, it will support RAR if the program is added, but if I make a new archive format (lets say .AUZY), it doesn't matter what I install, it wont be supported by the default program (because it doesn't know its even an archive).

Because it only can install formats that is hardcoded within the source code. We need something that allows developers to add .AUZY to the archiving program via a special module file.

That's the best way of doing it. Otherwise users need to upgrade their entire program to support all archive types within 1 program (and yes, we all know that distro's wont do that).

If you don't give a damn about integration, vote me down, and vote however (I'll reiterate that I no longer care because the only way to fix ubuntu I believe is a fork away from the old community).

If like me you care about integration, modularity, and having a powerful OS which no longer requires hacks to the source code to support new features, then vote me up. Sorry guys, but instead of having a free OS, I also believe we need an OS which can be extended as will.

The problem is that since Ubuntu is open source, people just say "we'll hack the source its alright". We SHOULD instead treat everything as closed source, and make it possible for people to add to the programs without touching the original source code. ]]> Tue, 19 May 2009 14:02:02 +0000
sometimes rewriting code from scratch is not a solution, it cost too much.

and treating open source software as closed source software is a nonsense.

the cost in time and money to add your fantazipformat ( .AUZY ) to the archive manager is way less than to implement a new archive plugin framework + application that handle them.

Just be rationale and think how many compression format will born from now to, let say, 2020? :D]]> Tue, 19 May 2009 15:56:54 +0000
So let me reiterate.. Ubuntu users keep wanting to take shortcuts, and the end result is that we end up with crappy integration (just look at the kernel for the perfect example of how to constantly break drivers).


You are making a big assumption there too. Modularity is NOT hard to code. I know, I programmed a damned awesome plugin loader in C in uni. And I was almost a newbie. Took maybe a week (tops). So the cost of implementing a plugin loader I don't believe is that big.


It only takes 1 unsupported format for the users to require a second program. Furthermore, LTS ubuntu customers need programs that can last 3 years. Modularising them is the only way.]]> Wed, 20 May 2009 00:43:12 +0000
Because there is nothing like a modular archive manager as you suggested, it should be coded from scratch and that is hardly the best solution.

Implementing modularity in the existent archive manager likely will require a lot of refactoring which isn't needed if you just want to add the support for a new archive format.

I agree that some software needs to be developed with modularity in mind ( audio players, image manipulation ), but for the most of them modularity is over-engineering.
]]> Wed, 20 May 2009 13:27:17 +0000
- Eclipse is successful (IBM didn't)
- Firefox is VERY successful (based on modularity)
- Windows has exceptional hardware support as opposed to Linux (because windows drivers designed 2 years ago for vista still work for Windows 7, and in some cases, Windows XP drivers even work).

Modularity is NEVER overengineering. It may seem like it before you code something, but lets face it, when firefox was first released nobody dreamed it would be successful.

In this case, we can have no way of knowing how people will use it. But I can think of plenty of ways people could benefit.]]> Wed, 20 May 2009 17:23:42 +0000
Windows has exceptional hardware support because hardware manufacturers write drivers for Windows platform only :)

Microsoft don't develop any drivers, instead Linux Community is forced to develop its own drivers ( almost always with reverse engineering because manufacturers do not want to handle the hardware specifics ).

This is the real difference in hardware support.]]> Thu, 21 May 2009 12:26:45 +0000
In fact, remember why Vista failed? Many people were complaining of BSOD's and such. This was due to a few changes with the kernel.

But with Linux, its in a constant state of flux. Its part of the reason. Developers have no way of guaranteeing that the drivers they write will work with any minor update, so they don't bother.

OSX has the same problem too (which is why barely any driver developers write drivers for it). Many of our customers complained that their high end audio devices broke every 2 or 3 months with the OSX updates.


Its a valid reason if you think about it. As a hardware manufacturer, you MUST be able to ensure the driver works reliably, or people whinge and call your company lame. ]]> Thu, 21 May 2009 17:23:10 +0000