3 ms·

The packaging system has very little to do with user adoption of a more complicated interface, or the success of proprietary software in a purposely open system

by ynniv 8y ago

The packaging system has very little to do with user adoption of a more complicated interface, or the success of proprietary software in a purposely open system. From the user's standpoint, package management on Linux is usually just hitting the "update" or "install" buttons. Edit: I have no idea why you think this is condescending.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
It's this kind of condescending attitude towards users that keeps Linux a non-option for people. What happens when a user wants to install something that isn't in the repo? Or do you just imagine that "average users" don't do that (and that no one else matters)? Edit response: It is condescending because it imagines the user is incapable or uninterested in the way their system actually works, as a mere pusher of buttons to make the blinkenlights go. Sure, some users are like that, but largely it is a convenient excuse to dismiss criticism.
- ynniv 8y ago
  What problems does Flatpak solve from a user perspective? Assume the user is already using Ubuntu, and will download and run any shell script without a second thought.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    That shell script may not actually work because it makes assumptions about the structure of the underlying OS that may have changed 10 minutes ago on the arbitrary whim of a distro developer. The installer/uninstaller paradigm is almost as bad as the package manager paradigm in my opinion.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- xorcist 8y ago
  Everything you say is completely applicable to Android as well, and it's not clear how that is making the platform a non-option for people. Very few people installs third party packages. The market share of any PC desktop operating system has mostly to do with the type of office work that took place in the 90s, when computers took over. That's slowly changing as the web is taking over, and Chromebooks, Android, Mac, and "regular" Linux desktops becomes a viable platform for sharing your work with others.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > Everything you say is completely applicable to Android as well, and it's not clear how that is making the platform a non-option for people. Very few people installs third party packages. Consider that the usecase for a personal desktop computer may be different from that of a smartphone or tablet. There's more to personal computing than a web browser.
    - xorcist 8y ago
      Right, but the Android comparison was meant as a counter example to how packages outside the main repository being difficult to install is somehow a deal breaker to ordinary users. It's not. Desktop computer market share is mainly due to historical reasons. Of course an easier to use third party packing system would make the desktop easier to use, but that's not where the pain points are. (Especially since most third party binary packaged software is just something you unpack and run.) Even the most easy to use packaging system you could imagine wouldn't impact the Linux desktop market share measurably.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        > Desktop computer market share is mainly due to historical reasons. Historical reasons like it being an open platform that developers could target without the requirement of third party approval, among other strengths.
  - shittyadmin 8y ago

by ynniv 8y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

It's this kind of condescending attitude towards users that keeps Linux a non-option for people. What happens when a user wants to install something that isn't in the repo? Or do you just imagine that "average users" don't do that (and that no one else matters)? Edit response: It is condescending because it imagines the user is incapable or uninterested in the way their system actually works, as a mere pusher of buttons to make the blinkenlights go. Sure, some users are like that, but largely it is a convenient excuse to dismiss criticism.

ynniv 8y ago
What problems does Flatpak solve from a user perspective? Assume the user is already using Ubuntu, and will download and run any shell script without a second thought.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  That shell script may not actually work because it makes assumptions about the structure of the underlying OS that may have changed 10 minutes ago on the arbitrary whim of a distro developer. The installer/uninstaller paradigm is almost as bad as the package manager paradigm in my opinion.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
xorcist 8y ago
Everything you say is completely applicable to Android as well, and it's not clear how that is making the platform a non-option for people. Very few people installs third party packages. The market share of any PC desktop operating system has mostly to do with the type of office work that took place in the 90s, when computers took over. That's slowly changing as the web is taking over, and Chromebooks, Android, Mac, and "regular" Linux desktops becomes a viable platform for sharing your work with others.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  > Everything you say is completely applicable to Android as well, and it's not clear how that is making the platform a non-option for people. Very few people installs third party packages. Consider that the usecase for a personal desktop computer may be different from that of a smartphone or tablet. There's more to personal computing than a web browser.
  - xorcist 8y ago
    Right, but the Android comparison was meant as a counter example to how packages outside the main repository being difficult to install is somehow a deal breaker to ordinary users. It's not. Desktop computer market share is mainly due to historical reasons. Of course an easier to use third party packing system would make the desktop easier to use, but that's not where the pain points are. (Especially since most third party binary packaged software is just something you unpack and run.) Even the most easy to use packaging system you could imagine wouldn't impact the Linux desktop market share measurably.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      > Desktop computer market share is mainly due to historical reasons. Historical reasons like it being an open platform that developers could target without the requirement of third party approval, among other strengths.
- shittyadmin 8y ago