Why are there so many package manager formats?

Such as yum, apt, rpm, deb, etc.? And perhaps more importantly, why do most distros only support one or two by default?

It seems to me that it would be beneficial if one format were standardized upon, so that developers could build once, and have their software be installable on any Linux machine. Similarly, users would then never have to worry about running into a situation where a program they want to use only has YUM builds, but they have an apt distro. It seems like it would go a ways towards reducing the Linux fragmentation issues that are a discouragement to newcomers switching (at least, it is to me).

It may be that it isn't actually as difficult as I think it is to set up a distro to support multiple package manager formats. But I still wonder why there isn't either one or two standard formats (kind of like .exe and .msi on Windows), or it isn't common to support all the common ones, no matter what distro is being run. My guess is it has to do with different people thinking different solutions are better, but this seems like a case where standardization would be beneficial for the environment at large.

 

From my (very limited) understanding, a lot of it has to do with NMH mentality (not made here). I know that Canonical has been showing such a bent recently, and maybe Red Hat does the same(?... I don't follow RH all that much).

 

Why are there so many linux distros?

Because people can't work together.

Don't agree with me? FORK TIME.

 

this post evinces a lack of understanding as to how packages (and repositories for that matter) work. source is the standard -- compile and install whichever way is required by a given system and/or you prefer.

 

Yes, you can compile and install assuming the software in question is open source. But some Linux software is closed-source. And compiling and installing tends to be a lot more labor-intensive and prone to errors than installing a package. And it isn't an option for non-technical users. Even as a technical user, I only do it when I have to. My point in this thread is asking why there isn't a more user-friendly, cross-distro easy way to install software, and compiling it doesn't meet the user-friendly requirement.

I don't particularly understand the differences between package managers and the ELF format, which as I understand is standard between most *nix OSes (and thus should have some degree of portability?). So it's possible I'm missing a useful option in there.

The NMH/fork reasons were kind of what I'd suspected. But I'm still curious if anyone knows more about how this came about with regards to packages in particular, and whether there's been any efforts to consolidate them, like the systemd/upstart consolidation that was recently announced.

 

There is the definition of the word "standard", and then there is what almost always happens in the real world.

 

Haha, true. I'm still on a pre-USB standard when it comes to the phone charger situation.

 

Fragmentation is easily the open source world's greatest weakness...

 

Proprietary is just as fragmented, I can give you 8 billion examples. Hell even single companies often have several incompatible standards within their own products.

The only exceptions are de-facto monopolies, which just means everyone is stuck with the same crappy solution at a terrible price.

 

I would argue that those de-facto monopolies are the rule rather than the exception in the proprietary world. There might be many players at the beginning, but over time the industry consolidates as the ones that are unable to compete either get bought out or go out of business. By ththe dust settles and the market is mature, there's usually only a handful of choices left.

On the other hand, there's no way a big open source project can "buy out" a smaller one, and the threshold for "going out of business" is much higher as every single person either directly or indirectly involved in the project has to lose interest in it, leaving it completely unmaintained and without anybody interested enough to fork it.

 

To answer the original question: because packages are, in principle, distro-specific. There's little need for standardization.

Unless the distros have the same origin, you should not mix packages in most cases.

 

Why are there so many package manager formats?

Because not everyone agrees on what the best way to do things is. This is the strength of open source.

 

And it's greatest weakness.

 

What is the principle that makes them distro-specific? In practice, yes, they do tend to be distro specific. But no one has put forth any technical reason that this needs to be the case.

 

I'll abuse a meme here:

In soviet russia, market chooses you!

which boils down to:

In soviet russia, product owns you! (clicked any EULAs lately?)

 

For a second, I thought that I clicked on the wrong thread. Always confuses me when people change up thread titles in their posts .

Anyway, as far as software monopolies go, welcome to the network effect. Your business partners use Office, therefore you need to use Office to ensure compatibility (ignoring the issues between different versions of Office, let alone with things like .odt).

And iirc, software EULAs (especially for shrink-wrapped software) generally aren't enforceable in court. Of course, IANAL.

 

It might be better to say that software EULAs have generally not been tested in court - both the software companies and the licensees are afraid of setting an unfavorable precedent, so virtually all EULA disputes are settled privately between the 2 parties.

Whether or not EULAs are generally enforceable in court remains undetermined, and everyone involved wants to keep it that way forever.

 

Depends on the jurisdiction you're talking about. In the EU, courts ruled that customers can resell their all-digital games despite EULA causes against it ( EU court rejects EULAs, says digital games can be resold - Destructoid), whereas Stateside it seems that nobody knows how to systematically handle EULA agreements ( End-user license agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

 

what is a package manager format? honestly confused.

 

The package manager is the principle. Distros are built around a certain package manager, and that package manager is part of what makes the distro what it is.

There is probably no technical reason why you can't use apt on Fedora, but why bother? If you want to use apt, use an apt based distro.