3 ms·
Package managers are a fundamentally flawed concept: You depend on your distro mantainers to package what you need to install. If it isn't packaged, best case
by sandov 8y ago
Package managers are a fundamentally flawed concept:
You depend on your distro mantainers to package what you need to install. If it isn't packaged, best case scenario is you get a tarball, which is already too hard for 99% of computer users. Snaps and Flatpaks are still too unpolished.
Getting all your user applications (DAW, IDE, etc) from your OS developer (instead of getting it from the application developer) is also against the sentiment of freedom that so many Linux users preach.
- beagle3 8y agoNo. Ubuntu makes private package archives (PPAs) very simple to use; many packages are available from the maintainer’s PPA. There are many alternative repositories for essentially all distorts today; snaps and flatpaks are indeed not yet polished enough, but they are much better and easier for 99% of users than tarballs, so calling tarballs a “best case scenario” is, in my opinion, wrong.
- tsimionescu 8y agoAnd how are PPAs fundamentally different from downloading a Windows installer from the Internet? If I download the installer from the maintainer's site, there's 0 risk (assuming HTTPS). And the site giving the PPA link is just as likely to be a phishing site as the the one serving some exe. Except browsers will sometimes warn on strange executables, whereas none do on misleading PPA links.
- beagle3 8y agoMoving the goal posts much? You were complaining tarballs are the “best case” and are not good enough because they’re too hard for regular users. PPA is as easy as windows downloads; it updates the same way as the main system unlike windows; and it always go through ununtu’s Servers which makes it somewhat more monitorable. But that’s a new discussion.