4 ms·

It sounds like you have a lot more experience with windows than other platforms. Many who have mainly used windows haven't experienced what typical software in

It sounds like you have a lot more experience with windows than other platforms. Many who have mainly used windows haven't experienced what typical software installation is like on systems like Linux. One hardly ever needs to run on trusted executables, for any reason. If you do, they come from one or two trusted sources, not one of hundreds of private websites. That is just not how Linux software is distributed. It doesn't abridge freedom, either - if you want to run I trusted executables, nothing is trying to stop you, either. Then, if you do have an executable to install from, the installation process is more likely to be one command run in a terminal then a GUI 'wizard' that takes 10 minutes, frequent attention and 20 clicks, and tries to convince/trick you to install a bunch of other software.

kodablah 8y ago
My experience ranges across platforms which is why I call out this ridiculous bias when I see it, especially when it uses dumb examples like Filezilla to represent the whole. Look at the other options for Filezilla downloads. The default Mac one is the same bundled crap from the same source. The Linux one is from the same source too. Of course I would be unreasonable to criticize the other platforms if the forum post was about those instead. > One hardly ever needs to run on trusted executables, for any reason. If you do, they come from one or two trusted sources, not one of hundreds of private websites That's just not true if you want up to date software. I can list a ton of software to the contrary and lots of installing that includes just extracting tarballs, or installing their deb/rpm you download, or if they use the distro package manager, they just have you add their server and cert. > GUI 'wizard' that takes 10 minutes, frequent attention and 20 clicks Well if you're just gonna give false impressions with hyperbole, a rational discussion can't be had. Regardless, the issues with installation are primarily the choice of the devs, not the OS. These days they more look like the installation of Nodejs, Go, PgAdmin, VSCode, etc (i.e. minimal MSI's or just zip extracts) than complicated adware of yore. That this is not clear and you think 10 minute wizards with 20 clicks is normal makes it seem like you are not familiar with the platforms you talk about.
- Symbiote 8y ago
  > The Linux one is from the same source too. Not in practise. The Linux version of Filezilla will usually be sourced from a package manager: $ apt show filezilla Package: filezilla Version: 3.28.0-1 … Description: Full-featured graphical FTP/FTPS/SFTP client Even Filezilla's own website says "It is highly recommended to use the package management system of your distribution". A huge portion of the software a typical user requires is available in the standard repository of a Linux distribution. I have one extra Apt repository configured that would be reasonable for a normal user to install: Skype.
  - kodablah 8y ago
    Meh, they don't keep versions up to date. That version in the apt repo is several versions behind (not to mention how far behind they are on 16.04 repos), not something you usually want to do with network software like Filezilla. My comment listed just 4 pieces of software off the top of my head I installed on a fresh desktop recently, and I wouldn't get any of them from default apt install.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Honorable providers, for example the Tor and MPTCP projects, run their own repositories, with GnuPG-authenticated packages. You get up-to-date builds, with no crap.
      - shawnz 8y ago
        But this negates the advantage of having a small number of trusted repos if you need to add third-party repos for every project.
        mirimir 8y ago
        Sure. And it's a tradeoff. The Tor and MPTCP projects came to mind, because I trust them. And there aren't many others that I trust. My problem is that I prefer Debian stable, which is very conservative about package updates. But sometimes I end up using Ubuntu, because its repo includes newer packages. Also, my core systems do not include anything except stable Debian. I only use third-party repos in project-specific VMs. I even use Oracle's MySQL Workbench in an Ubuntu VM. And even Windows 10 VMs, when I need Excel or other Windows-only apps. That is, compartmentalization.

kodablah 8y ago

My experience ranges across platforms which is why I call out this ridiculous bias when I see it, especially when it uses dumb examples like Filezilla to represent the whole. Look at the other options for Filezilla downloads. The default Mac one is the same bundled crap from the same source. The Linux one is from the same source too. Of course I would be unreasonable to criticize the other platforms if the forum post was about those instead. > One hardly ever needs to run on trusted executables, for any reason. If you do, they come from one or two trusted sources, not one of hundreds of private websites That's just not true if you want up to date software. I can list a ton of software to the contrary and lots of installing that includes just extracting tarballs, or installing their deb/rpm you download, or if they use the distro package manager, they just have you add their server and cert. > GUI 'wizard' that takes 10 minutes, frequent attention and 20 clicks Well if you're just gonna give false impressions with hyperbole, a rational discussion can't be had. Regardless, the issues with installation are primarily the choice of the devs, not the OS. These days they more look like the installation of Nodejs, Go, PgAdmin, VSCode, etc (i.e. minimal MSI's or just zip extracts) than complicated adware of yore. That this is not clear and you think 10 minute wizards with 20 clicks is normal makes it seem like you are not familiar with the platforms you talk about.

Symbiote 8y ago
> The Linux one is from the same source too. Not in practise. The Linux version of Filezilla will usually be sourced from a package manager: $ apt show filezilla Package: filezilla Version: 3.28.0-1 … Description: Full-featured graphical FTP/FTPS/SFTP client Even Filezilla's own website says "It is highly recommended to use the package management system of your distribution". A huge portion of the software a typical user requires is available in the standard repository of a Linux distribution. I have one extra Apt repository configured that would be reasonable for a normal user to install: Skype.
- kodablah 8y ago
  Meh, they don't keep versions up to date. That version in the apt repo is several versions behind (not to mention how far behind they are on 16.04 repos), not something you usually want to do with network software like Filezilla. My comment listed just 4 pieces of software off the top of my head I installed on a fresh desktop recently, and I wouldn't get any of them from default apt install.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Honorable providers, for example the Tor and MPTCP projects, run their own repositories, with GnuPG-authenticated packages. You get up-to-date builds, with no crap.
    - shawnz 8y ago
      But this negates the advantage of having a small number of trusted repos if you need to add third-party repos for every project.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Sure. And it's a tradeoff. The Tor and MPTCP projects came to mind, because I trust them. And there aren't many others that I trust. My problem is that I prefer Debian stable, which is very conservative about package updates. But sometimes I end up using Ubuntu, because its repo includes newer packages. Also, my core systems do not include anything except stable Debian. I only use third-party repos in project-specific VMs. I even use Oracle's MySQL Workbench in an Ubuntu VM. And even Windows 10 VMs, when I need Excel or other Windows-only apps. That is, compartmentalization.