5 ms·

Because part of being open is being accessible. "It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door

by cmdkeen 11y ago

Because part of being open is being accessible. "It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard." Linux is difficult to use for the kind of person who is downloading software from Download.com - "compiling binaries directly from the source" might as well be Klingon to them. Frankly as a geek I'm much happier with my Mac and Windows machine than I am with Linux. Even now things like the Linux Standard Base not being utterly standard demonstrate that Linux is still aiming for a different market. There is a gulf between "my Mom is running Debian, she thinks it is Windows, hehehe" and "able to manage a Linux box even remotely competently".

bramblerose 11y ago
Plus: compiling from source does not mean the code is ad/spyware free.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Ok, assuming that it does not, how many instances in the wild have there been of ad/spyware distributed as source to be compiled on the target machine?
  - madeofpalk 11y ago
    I would imagine that in a world where my mum is compiling from the 'source', the 'source' that she's compiling would be infected in the same way as Download.com is.
    - petetnt 11y ago
      "Mom I have told you thousands of times! Configure, make and make install, not configure and make install!"
  - lmm 11y ago
    Ubuntu shipped a spyware package with a few releases. I assume they had a source release with the same package configuration, in which case they were doing exactly that.
    - kedean 11y ago
      Are you referring to the amazon search debacle? Because that does not fall into the same realm, it was very clear that it included this feature from the moment you start it up. It wasn't hidden at all.
      - lmm 11y ago
        That one yes. Many people including the FSF described it as "spyware".
  - anon1385 11y ago
    If source distribution was the main way of getting software onto the computers of less technical users then it would be rife.
executesorder66 11y ago
Downloading applications via a package manager is basically the same as downloading applications on your phone via an "App Store" application. (Especially if you are using a package manager with a GUI) Millions of people use app stores everyday. And I'd say a huge percentage of those people are the ones who would also download a program on their PC from download.com Which sounds more accessible: 1) click package-manger program 2) type the name of the program you want to install 3) click install OR 1) open web browser 2) go to http://yahoo.com 3) type google 4) click the first link 5) google "download program_i_want" 6) click on link leading to "www.download.com/malware/viruses/tracking/program_i_want" 7) stare at the dozen different DOWNLOAD! buttons, and wonder which one 8) click the biggest flashiest one 9) wait for it to finish downloading (if it doesn't automatically start and installer) a)open File explorer b)Go to Downloads folder c)wade through the hundreds of other downloads until you find kd457sfjgs_download_app_i_want_setup_INSTALLER.exe.EXE 10)Once the installer is started click the NEXT button a dozen times, inadvertently installing extra malware each time
- krapp 11y ago
  You're being a bit disingenuous in making the latter seem more complicated than it actually is, though. It's only slightly more tedious than a repo, but it's no less accessible.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    In fact, the malware is often very much too accessible. On these download sites, the software you actually want to download is not the biggest "DOWNLOAD NOW!" link. If you click that, you'll get something completely different. As so many people actually do get - they install accidentally something they weren't looking for, let alone all the malware that comes with it.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Also, the world doesn't end on package repository. In my experience with Linux, a lot of software I want is either very outdated or not in the repository at all. OTOH, for all intents and purposes you can assume that if something can't be found by Google, it doesn't exist.
taneq 11y ago
"Yeah, well I expect the lights had gone out." Although I guess if this describes Linux, then closed source is generally more like the plans being on display at the local Galactic Council office on Proxima Centauri.
leni536 11y ago
You know you can download .deb files for some stuff and they install fine.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  You can download .deb files for everything, and they work great.
- rmc 11y ago
  You can download all deb files. That's in fact what apt does. It downloads and then installs deb files.
- mirimir 11y ago
  You can also install the wrong .deb files, and wedge your system ;)
chris_wot 11y ago
The only times I've ever needed to compile a package from its sources was when I was trying to hack away at it. I've not had to compile a Linux kernel in almost 8 years. Your argument is specious. You should seriously stop using it. As for the LSB, that hasn't stopped distributions in any way, shape or form. Debian got rid of their LSB meta-package because they didn't need it.

by cmdkeen 11y ago

bramblerose 11y ago

Plus: compiling from source does not mean the code is ad/spyware free.

jacquesm 11y ago
Ok, assuming that it does not, how many instances in the wild have there been of ad/spyware distributed as source to be compiled on the target machine?
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  I would imagine that in a world where my mum is compiling from the 'source', the 'source' that she's compiling would be infected in the same way as Download.com is.
  - petetnt 11y ago
    "Mom I have told you thousands of times! Configure, make and make install, not configure and make install!"
- lmm 11y ago
  Ubuntu shipped a spyware package with a few releases. I assume they had a source release with the same package configuration, in which case they were doing exactly that.
  - kedean 11y ago
    Are you referring to the amazon search debacle? Because that does not fall into the same realm, it was very clear that it included this feature from the moment you start it up. It wasn't hidden at all.
    - lmm 11y ago
      That one yes. Many people including the FSF described it as "spyware".
- anon1385 11y ago
  If source distribution was the main way of getting software onto the computers of less technical users then it would be rife.

executesorder66 11y ago

Downloading applications via a package manager is basically the same as downloading applications on your phone via an "App Store" application. (Especially if you are using a package manager with a GUI) Millions of people use app stores everyday. And I'd say a huge percentage of those people are the ones who would also download a program on their PC from download.com Which sounds more accessible: 1) click package-manger program 2) type the name of the program you want to install 3) click install OR 1) open web browser 2) go to http://yahoo.com 3) type google 4) click the first link 5) google "download program_i_want" 6) click on link leading to "www.download.com/malware/viruses/tracking/program_i_want" 7) stare at the dozen different DOWNLOAD! buttons, and wonder which one 8) click the biggest flashiest one 9) wait for it to finish downloading (if it doesn't automatically start and installer) a)open File explorer b)Go to Downloads folder c)wade through the hundreds of other downloads until you find kd457sfjgs_download_app_i_want_setup_INSTALLER.exe.EXE 10)Once the installer is started click the NEXT button a dozen times, inadvertently installing extra malware each time

krapp 11y ago
You're being a bit disingenuous in making the latter seem more complicated than it actually is, though. It's only slightly more tedious than a repo, but it's no less accessible.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  In fact, the malware is often very much too accessible. On these download sites, the software you actually want to download is not the biggest "DOWNLOAD NOW!" link. If you click that, you'll get something completely different. As so many people actually do get - they install accidentally something they weren't looking for, let alone all the malware that comes with it.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Also, the world doesn't end on package repository. In my experience with Linux, a lot of software I want is either very outdated or not in the repository at all. OTOH, for all intents and purposes you can assume that if something can't be found by Google, it doesn't exist.

taneq 11y ago

"Yeah, well I expect the lights had gone out." Although I guess if this describes Linux, then closed source is generally more like the plans being on display at the local Galactic Council office on Proxima Centauri.

leni536 11y ago

You know you can download .deb files for some stuff and they install fine.

StavrosK 11y ago
You can download .deb files for everything, and they work great.
rmc 11y ago
You can download all deb files. That's in fact what apt does. It downloads and then installs deb files.
mirimir 11y ago
You can also install the wrong .deb files, and wedge your system ;)

chris_wot 11y ago

The only times I've ever needed to compile a package from its sources was when I was trying to hack away at it. I've not had to compile a Linux kernel in almost 8 years. Your argument is specious. You should seriously stop using it. As for the LSB, that hasn't stopped distributions in any way, shape or form. Debian got rid of their LSB meta-package because they didn't need it.