That'd be a brilliant idea that'll never work. There are so many different versions of different libraries installed on the various Linux distros, it's just plain impossible to create a single binary that works on all of them. You must also remember that Linux isn't tied to the Intel x86 arthitecture. There are distros that run on x86_64, PowerPC, Itanium, Alpha, etc., etc.

After horsing around with RPM`s and dealing with dependency issues the only way I have found to install anything is:

/configure
make
make install

It is foolproof and always works. I always install from source but once in a while I find a slack package.

That should be considered the standard install, It should be a given that a linux install include the development packages.

Windows does not have a unified installer and nobody seems to complain about that. I don't think you need to be an expert to run "apt-get install package" or "urpmi package" or even "./configure && make && make install", you just have to learn it, just like you learnt to click on that installer icon in Windows.

Each distribution usually has a default package manager and often a wide range of software packages made specifically for that distribution.
Why would you advocate users of all Linux distributions use what you wish when you don't even use those distributions?
I recently spent 4 hours installing Win2k, Office, Antivirus software, and over 100MB of updates and upgrades to a PC. Many reboots are required after installations and after the critical updates the PC would not shut down without using the power button.
I shake my head when someone tries to state Windows software installs are trouble free.
That would be the README file that you can find inside the directory created after unpacking the source code.

the nature of oss is not to make it user friendly or have a unified package manager, it's to contribute back to the community in whatever way you can (which would include making changes to the source code of others, in which a unified package management system counteracts (and yes I know not everyone is a programmer but some do not want an "end all, be all" package management system and really couldn't care less about one)).

First of all linux is meant as open source. It is by definition programmer's heaven. By making a standard installer that will install binaries you destroy most of the open source idea. Also the standard installer is useless because you already have the easiest install method (configure make make install).

Also I agree that the average dumb windows user should stick to windows. If he would move to linux then so would the average money thirsty developer. Then there would be chaos just like with windows. The problem is not only windows. The software developers are racing to produce software as fast as possible and earn as much money as possible. This leads to bad software that crashes, has a lot of bugs and needs lots of patches. On the other hand linux programmers program for free and they do it because they like it. The lack of deadlines and a boss that pisses you off everyday makes it possible to make a higher quality software.

I frankly think that the internet will be a better place if Windows takes it on the chin. A healthy environment is a heterogeneous one, and the dominance of Windows - as we are all aware - is the root cause of most of our problems today. Windows is by nature insecure (though it can be quite adequately secured if you know how and do the work) and in conjunction with its overwhelming dominance that makes it a very attractive target.

Hence we have 'bots and spyware and zombies and all these things that endanger the 'net.

Linux and Mac OSX herald the rise of heterogeneity on the net - or, to those of us who were here back when it was arpanet, it heralds the return of heterogeneity, and a restoration of health.

To that end, we must accept and welcom the "clueless masses" who want to leave Windows; the whole net will be healthier for it. For this to happen, a standard package management capability is essential.

Myself, I run a highly modified Mandrake environment. I like the tools and the relative ease of setup. But inevitably my installation becomes somewhat messed up; I install binary RPMs when available, but very frequently I do the configure make make install route so my RPM database winds up not matching my actual installation, and eventually I find myself lost in dependency hell.

From my perspective, it would be ideal if I could do something like a configure make make RPM approach, followed by installing the RPM. This would solve all problems, for programmers/geeks/uber geeks and clueless users alike. Installation would be done by RPM (or Yum, or whatever became the standard) and the other means of installing software would have as their output an RPM to be installed ,rather than an installed package.

The advantages of such an approach are too numerous to list, and I really don't see a downside.

Now, I myself am just starting to play around with rpm to figure out how to build binary RPMs from compiled tarballs, and so far I haven't done a lot of work and I haven't had a lot of success. I am thinking that a standard tool (make-RPM) that could be invoked instead of make install would be a really good thing.

Comments/criticisms/suggestions?

I would dare to utter the following:

While it is certainly possible to add software to your distro, it is not the responsability of that distro to make it easy for you to do so - even though they might. In fact, it can be argued that it is in the best interest of the vender to make both the package management system and the file structure of their distro as unique and non-compatible as possible with other distros. (Within the bounds of functionality)

When I go to the store and plop down money for windows, I get windows - that's it.
If I want to do anything besides browse the web and my files, or use notepad, I need to buy more software. Because this is the business model, software needs to be easy and uniform in it's installation routine.

When I purchase/acquire a linux distribution - let's use SuSE as an example - I essentially purchase all the software that the vender deems I need compiled and package for that distribution at that moment in time. My $$ allows me the right to freely patch the packages that came with the system, but if I wish to upgrade (officially) I will need to purchase the next version of SuSE. Yes, third-party packages exist and packages are rolled as SuSE rpms for applications that are not packaged with the distro, but you will not be supported if you use them. I buy SuSE and I need buy nothing else. This is the business model that is based on selling support vs. selling software. If you were Novell, would you be interested in seeing a uniform package management system that allowed people to buy your product (and support) once and then upgrade from the web from that point on? Do you really, as a vender, want to support installations that are so easy to change by adding new or upgraded products you have no control over?

While it certainly is wonderful that we can - with some work - install and upgrade or favorite distro to our heart's content with all of this free software, I think we need to understand that - as the world exists to day - the exchange of currency needs to take place somewhere. The illusion of free (as in beer) software is supported by volunteers and money exchange at some point. As soon as either of these dry up, that's it. In fact, I would dare to extrapolate that if all software were packaged the same and all file systems structures were the same (uniform use of /opt /usr/local etc.) the number of distros would drop to maybe 1/2 a dozen (or less). Maybe that's what you are really looking for here - just one linux distribution. I wonder which one it will be?

A uniform package manager does not imply uniform packages or uniform installation locations across distros.

It does not require any uniformity of distros, other than that required by the kernel. It certainly does not require the distros to use the same configuration tools (other than the package manager) or anything else.

I don't think there would be any impact on the distros. I do think that the availability of such a standard - much as the kernel itself is a standard maintained and enforced by Linus - would go a long way toward making the Linux/BSD environment accessible for the average Windows user.