3 ms·
Because the software is inconsistent (and thus buggy) in that regard. Also, barely any developer possesses the knowledge and infrastructure necessary to build t
by kosma 8y ago
Because the software is inconsistent (and thus buggy) in that regard. Also, barely any developer possesses the knowledge and infrastructure necessary to build their software for dozens of arcane architectures.
Packagers create the glue between the software (which is heterogeneous) and the distro (which is internally consistent). The world without this glue is a horrible mess and a huge waste of time; the old Slackware is a good example. It's thanks to the distro makers that you don't have to spend days collecting requirements and acquiring arcane knowledge just to install a piece of software.
So: yes, those people devote a huge amount of time - so the countless users around the world don't have to. The net time value is positive.
- probonopd 8y agoI think we need to distinguish between software that is used as a component in a larger system (e.g., the core OS for which is the core business of a distribution), and an application that is not part of the larger system (distribution) but merely runs on top of it. For putting together a distribution (with tightly integrated components) the traditional packaging philosophy is probably very well suited For add-on third-party software that is not an integral part of the distribution but merely wants to run on it, not so much. An independent software author (e.g., Ultimaker or Prusa) just wants to reach all "Linux" users at once without dealing with different distribution's policies, and without needing to use the same version of e.g., Qt, that happens to be in a given distribution. And as a user of their software, I want their software on my "Linux" system in the same moment Windows and macOS users can have it.