4 ms·

Package management on Linux can be summed up as: use this old, custom patched version we provide or build from source. The alternative is just Windows style so

Package management on Linux can be summed up as: use this old, custom patched version we provide or build from source. The alternative is just Windows style software distribution: find a random exe on the internet and run it.

heinrich5991 11y ago
Some distros provide unpatched software that is up-to-date. :)
- J_Darnley 11y ago
  Perhaps I should have used those years ago instead of becoming jaded and cynical.
  - washadjeffmad 11y ago
    The trade off to having stable, secure packages has always been not getting new features. For example, in LTS releases, major versions are frozen but perpetually updated and patched for the lifetime of the distro. In more bleeding edge rolling release distros, you receive (or compile) sometimes major version updates of software within a short time after their public release. In those distros you can still freeze your packages at certain versions, but it's not quite the same as making sure every library and component in the system is getting the same treatment. Try manjaro (https://manjaro.github.io/ https://manjaro.github.io/). It uses pacman (like Arch) and yaourt (for AUR, building from source). Their driver and kernel management makes switching between free/non-free drivers or different kernels easy. And they're pretty close to bleeding edge; I've been running kernel 4.2 with Xorg 1.17 (released 2015/02) for months, and up to kernel 4.4rc4 and Xorg 1.18 are available in the repos.
i80and 11y ago
I use Linux as my day-to-day work platform, but my GOSH I hate the patching hell to which popular distros (mainly Debian and RH-based ones) subject everybody.
creshal 11y ago
For third-party software, it's a trade-off. But when the distributor is also the author – like Microsoft is for everything that is delivered via Windows Update – that is no longer a concern. We can compare the solutions by technical merit alone… and Windows doesn't come off too well.

heinrich5991 11y ago

Some distros provide unpatched software that is up-to-date. :)

J_Darnley 11y ago
Perhaps I should have used those years ago instead of becoming jaded and cynical.
- washadjeffmad 11y ago
  The trade off to having stable, secure packages has always been not getting new features. For example, in LTS releases, major versions are frozen but perpetually updated and patched for the lifetime of the distro. In more bleeding edge rolling release distros, you receive (or compile) sometimes major version updates of software within a short time after their public release. In those distros you can still freeze your packages at certain versions, but it's not quite the same as making sure every library and component in the system is getting the same treatment. Try manjaro (https://manjaro.github.io/ https://manjaro.github.io/). It uses pacman (like Arch) and yaourt (for AUR, building from source). Their driver and kernel management makes switching between free/non-free drivers or different kernels easy. And they're pretty close to bleeding edge; I've been running kernel 4.2 with Xorg 1.17 (released 2015/02) for months, and up to kernel 4.4rc4 and Xorg 1.18 are available in the repos.

i80and 11y ago

I use Linux as my day-to-day work platform, but my GOSH I hate the patching hell to which popular distros (mainly Debian and RH-based ones) subject everybody.

creshal 11y ago

For third-party software, it's a trade-off. But when the distributor is also the author – like Microsoft is for everything that is delivered via Windows Update – that is no longer a concern. We can compare the solutions by technical merit alone… and Windows doesn't come off too well.