4 ms·

Package Managers. In Debian the package manager (and repositories) is the app store.

by daemin 11y ago

moron4hire 11y ago
This is, to me, a point against package managers. Little Windows universe secret: Installers aren't that bad.
- temp 11y ago
  >Installers aren't that bad Nothing stops you from getting Firefox on Debian the "Windows" way.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    Tried it, couldn't get it to work. This was Raspbian, though.
    - mort96 11y ago
      Did you try to download the x86 build? If so, it's your fault. If they don't provide an arm build, or if you got the arm build, it's Mozilla's fault, not Debian's.
    - mwcampbell 11y ago
      As far as I can tell, Mozilla doesn't provide official Firefox builds for any ARM Linux device. The official Linux x86_64 build for version 44.0.2 is here: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/44.0.2/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-44.0.2.tar.bz2 https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/44.0.2/linux-x8... I don't know who uses those builds, though. We can be sure that the year of Linux on the desktop will never arrive if we expect end-users to unpack tarballs. Edit: To make that last part a little more constructive, perhaps this will help with distro-agnostic packaging of official Linux builds of Firefox and other applications: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps
    - xorcist 11y ago
      1. Unpack. 2. Run.
    - voltagex_ 11y ago
      My contact details are in my profile - I'm happy to help you get this working if you're still interested. It can be hard to find correct instructions for things like manual installs, especially when distros like Raspbian can be slightly different from their upstream sources.
- Peaker 11y ago
  After using apt-get for everything, going back to manually finding an (untrusted) executable, running it, hitting a bunch of next buttons -- seems insane. It is quite bad. External dependencies are also nearly impractical this way, so all installers tend to embed their universe of dependencies, making for an even worse experience.
  - moron4hire 11y ago
    Untrusted by whom? It's the same vendor whether it comes from their site or the package repository. And maybe people include way too many dependencies in their projects if it's too much to manage manually. Also, installers are perfectly capable of managing dependencies.
    - subway 11y ago
      It's the same vendor whether it comes from their site or the package repository. Prove it. The package manager allows you to cryptographically verify the binary was inspected by somebody you trust (the package maintainers). While windows has added code-signing/verification capabilities, many installers are unsigned, and those which are signed don't have a useful trust anchor.
      - moron4hire 11y ago
        Prove the repository maintainer doesn't blanket approve things because they are overwhelmed.
        voltagex_ 11y ago
        That's what the mailing list / debbugs are for. Each package has a maintainer(s) who are responsible for looking after the package creation and upload. A new upload creates an audit trail that could be checked if needed.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - 11y ago
- Ace17 11y ago
  There's no such thing as downloading a random installer from a random website, and then running it with administrative priviledges!

Package Managers. In Debian the package manager (and repositories) is the app store.

by daemin 11y ago

Package Managers. In Debian the package manager (and repositories) is the app store.

moron4hire 11y ago

This is, to me, a point against package managers. Little Windows universe secret: Installers aren't that bad.

temp 11y ago
>Installers aren't that bad Nothing stops you from getting Firefox on Debian the "Windows" way.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  Tried it, couldn't get it to work. This was Raspbian, though.
  - mort96 11y ago
    Did you try to download the x86 build? If so, it's your fault. If they don't provide an arm build, or if you got the arm build, it's Mozilla's fault, not Debian's.
  - mwcampbell 11y ago
    As far as I can tell, Mozilla doesn't provide official Firefox builds for any ARM Linux device. The official Linux x86_64 build for version 44.0.2 is here: https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/44.0.2/linux-x86_64/en-US/firefox-44.0.2.tar.bz2 https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/44.0.2/linux-x8... I don't know who uses those builds, though. We can be sure that the year of Linux on the desktop will never arrive if we expect end-users to unpack tarballs. Edit: To make that last part a little more constructive, perhaps this will help with distro-agnostic packaging of official Linux builds of Firefox and other applications: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/SandboxedApps
  - xorcist 11y ago
    1. Unpack. 2. Run.
  - voltagex_ 11y ago
    My contact details are in my profile - I'm happy to help you get this working if you're still interested. It can be hard to find correct instructions for things like manual installs, especially when distros like Raspbian can be slightly different from their upstream sources.
Peaker 11y ago
After using apt-get for everything, going back to manually finding an (untrusted) executable, running it, hitting a bunch of next buttons -- seems insane. It is quite bad. External dependencies are also nearly impractical this way, so all installers tend to embed their universe of dependencies, making for an even worse experience.
- moron4hire 11y ago
  Untrusted by whom? It's the same vendor whether it comes from their site or the package repository. And maybe people include way too many dependencies in their projects if it's too much to manage manually. Also, installers are perfectly capable of managing dependencies.
  - subway 11y ago
    It's the same vendor whether it comes from their site or the package repository. Prove it. The package manager allows you to cryptographically verify the binary was inspected by somebody you trust (the package maintainers). While windows has added code-signing/verification capabilities, many installers are unsigned, and those which are signed don't have a useful trust anchor.
    - moron4hire 11y ago
      Prove the repository maintainer doesn't blanket approve things because they are overwhelmed.
      - voltagex_ 11y ago
        That's what the mailing list / debbugs are for. Each package has a maintainer(s) who are responsible for looking after the package creation and upload. A new upload creates an audit trail that could be checked if needed.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- 11y ago
Ace17 11y ago
There's no such thing as downloading a random installer from a random website, and then running it with administrative priviledges!