6 ms·

> 1. I hate package managers as an application installation paradigm wat so you prefer go to vlc.com for vlc, 7-zip.com for 7-zip, update them by hand or add

> 1. I hate package managers as an application installation paradigm wat so you prefer go to vlc.com for vlc, 7-zip.com for 7-zip, update them by hand or add custom system services constantly running for every program to install themselves, etc etc instead of a `pacman -S 7z vlc krita libreoffice [every other software you need]`

wvenable 8y ago
In open source world, this is fine. In the closed source world, this is one step closer towards walled garden. Just the other day, I could not install something because my Windows 10 was set to "install only from store" and I had go in and turn that off. How long before that's no longer even an option?
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Yes. I like having software that is up to date and delivered direct from the developer. I like having portable applications that don't even need installation. I like being able to put applications on different disks. I like being able to have multiple versions of an application. There is not a single package manager in existence for Linux that gives me these things.
- pritambaral 8y ago
  Sounds like AppImages would satisfy all your requirements.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Yeah, they do actually. I really like AppImage, it's a shame they aren't really embraced at all by the community. Good luck getting them to show up with icons in your file manager (even Nitrux, which supposedly embraces AppImages, can't seem to do it).
- rkeene2 8y ago
  AppFS is a package manager for Linux that exists and solves all these problems, except the "putting them on different disks", which it doesn't prevent you from doing but it doesn't really make any sense either. http://appfs.rkeene.org/ http://appfs.rkeene.org/
  - jklinger410 8y ago
    >but it doesn't really make any sense either. I don't need every program on my SSD. Makes perfect sense.
  - russdpale 8y ago
    If its one thing I have learned about software development, its that you must account for people doing completely non sensical things. I knew a guy who had MS word 97, 2000, 03, and 07 all installed on the same machine, and he used all of them for various tasks. Insane? Most certainly, but welcome to humanity.
    - rkeene2 8y ago
      AppFS has no problem with that. The problem comes from keeping different packages on different disks -- since it caches them all into the same directory by default. It would be trivial to make it cache files from certain packages into different places as part of the configuration -- that's easy enough. The issues come into place for files that are shared (having the same SHA1) between packages, then you either have to duplicate the file or have some policy of searching for it. A better approach, if you care about this, is simply to have a lifecycle policy where more recently used blocks live on the SSD and less recently used blocks move to slower storage (bcache can do this for you), or are deleted (this is a planned feature: http://appfs.rkeene.org/web/tktview?name=930821d0fb http://appfs.rkeene.org/web/tktview?name=930821d0fb ).
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Aside from the obvious missing feature, there isn't even enough information to very your claims. Can I really have two versions of, say Krita, installed? Can I make a copy of that to take to an offline PC?
- morpheuskafka 8y ago
  Snapcraft?
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Not portable, can't install applications to different disks.
- inetknght 8y ago
  > I like having software that is up to date and delivered direct from the developer. I really think your argument against package managers on Linux is incorrect. Many linux distributions provide "some recent version" of common tools, but of course you can get the latest package directly from the developers. Nothing stops you from getting the latest packages directly from the developer (assuming the developer provides packages in the first place). Some developers even offer their own repository you could add to the package manager so you can stay up to date regardless of whatever version you don't like in the OS repository. > I like having portable applications that don't even need installation. You can build from source and run without installing. That's probably not quite what you mean though. > I like being able to put applications on different disks. No problem here. You can mount disks to wherever you want and you can install using a prefix path to those locations. > I like being able to have multiple versions of an application. Prefix path to the rescue here too. Edit: answered more of your concerns
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Compiling most things is decidedly nontrivial. Half an hour of wasted time is not appropriate just to install something in a different directory. A package manager really should be able to do prefixed installs on any package, but that's far from a universal feature right now.
    - inetknght 8y ago
      > Compiling most things is decidedly nontrivial. I've spent the past five years building a lot of things from source. I agree that there are definitely a lot of things that it's nontrivial for. However, I've found that the hardest part is satisfying dependencies. Once dependencies are satisfied, building is usually really easy. And the software that isn't easy to build after satisfying dependencies is usually not worth building in the first place. Of course, that's just my experience as a C++ developer.
    - swiley 8y ago
      Gentoo can do prefixed installs, I'm reasonably certain alpine can as well. If you're on debian you can always just make a chroot with debootstrap.
- woolvalley 8y ago
  I like how homebrew cask does it, where each cask is a formula to download the app into /Applications . You get the reproducibility of package lists, the speed of just typing an install / search command vs searching a website and the connivence of normal app installation and management.
- vt240 8y ago
  Occasionally, I still run into a piece of software which makes me yearn for the days when I built my own /usr/local from source. But as the repos have got better, this is getting to be a rare event. I still don't like the feeling of being boxed into the package management system. And the extra level of complication trying to manage issues from building software from source which reference package managed libraries and other dependencies.
- colemickens 8y ago
  There's no reason that they need to come from the developers. I'm maintaining over a dozen packages that build directly from HEAD that are all integrated with my package manager and allows anyone else to leverage my work and get my packages. Nix is the package manager that does this. It literally does damn near everything that comes out of every HN discussion of package managers, ever, but very few seem to bother investigating it.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    There's several reasons for that, like it still means building from source, or that nix is basically its own programming language you have to learn. Also, if I understand how nix works correctly, it still can't create portable applications.
- scarface74 8y ago
  And then how do you find the software? Google? That’s fine until the top link is a third party that adds adware to the installer.

wvenable 8y ago

In open source world, this is fine. In the closed source world, this is one step closer towards walled garden. Just the other day, I could not install something because my Windows 10 was set to "install only from store" and I had go in and turn that off. How long before that's no longer even an option?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

Yes. I like having software that is up to date and delivered direct from the developer. I like having portable applications that don't even need installation. I like being able to put applications on different disks. I like being able to have multiple versions of an application. There is not a single package manager in existence for Linux that gives me these things.

pritambaral 8y ago
Sounds like AppImages would satisfy all your requirements.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Yeah, they do actually. I really like AppImage, it's a shame they aren't really embraced at all by the community. Good luck getting them to show up with icons in your file manager (even Nitrux, which supposedly embraces AppImages, can't seem to do it).
rkeene2 8y ago
AppFS is a package manager for Linux that exists and solves all these problems, except the "putting them on different disks", which it doesn't prevent you from doing but it doesn't really make any sense either. http://appfs.rkeene.org/ http://appfs.rkeene.org/
- jklinger410 8y ago
  >but it doesn't really make any sense either. I don't need every program on my SSD. Makes perfect sense.
- russdpale 8y ago
  If its one thing I have learned about software development, its that you must account for people doing completely non sensical things. I knew a guy who had MS word 97, 2000, 03, and 07 all installed on the same machine, and he used all of them for various tasks. Insane? Most certainly, but welcome to humanity.
  - rkeene2 8y ago
    AppFS has no problem with that. The problem comes from keeping different packages on different disks -- since it caches them all into the same directory by default. It would be trivial to make it cache files from certain packages into different places as part of the configuration -- that's easy enough. The issues come into place for files that are shared (having the same SHA1) between packages, then you either have to duplicate the file or have some policy of searching for it. A better approach, if you care about this, is simply to have a lifecycle policy where more recently used blocks live on the SSD and less recently used blocks move to slower storage (bcache can do this for you), or are deleted (this is a planned feature: http://appfs.rkeene.org/web/tktview?name=930821d0fb http://appfs.rkeene.org/web/tktview?name=930821d0fb ).
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Aside from the obvious missing feature, there isn't even enough information to very your claims. Can I really have two versions of, say Krita, installed? Can I make a copy of that to take to an offline PC?
morpheuskafka 8y ago
Snapcraft?
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Not portable, can't install applications to different disks.
inetknght 8y ago
> I like having software that is up to date and delivered direct from the developer. I really think your argument against package managers on Linux is incorrect. Many linux distributions provide "some recent version" of common tools, but of course you can get the latest package directly from the developers. Nothing stops you from getting the latest packages directly from the developer (assuming the developer provides packages in the first place). Some developers even offer their own repository you could add to the package manager so you can stay up to date regardless of whatever version you don't like in the OS repository. > I like having portable applications that don't even need installation. You can build from source and run without installing. That's probably not quite what you mean though. > I like being able to put applications on different disks. No problem here. You can mount disks to wherever you want and you can install using a prefix path to those locations. > I like being able to have multiple versions of an application. Prefix path to the rescue here too. Edit: answered more of your concerns
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  Compiling most things is decidedly nontrivial. Half an hour of wasted time is not appropriate just to install something in a different directory. A package manager really should be able to do prefixed installs on any package, but that's far from a universal feature right now.
  - inetknght 8y ago
    > Compiling most things is decidedly nontrivial. I've spent the past five years building a lot of things from source. I agree that there are definitely a lot of things that it's nontrivial for. However, I've found that the hardest part is satisfying dependencies. Once dependencies are satisfied, building is usually really easy. And the software that isn't easy to build after satisfying dependencies is usually not worth building in the first place. Of course, that's just my experience as a C++ developer.
  - swiley 8y ago
    Gentoo can do prefixed installs, I'm reasonably certain alpine can as well. If you're on debian you can always just make a chroot with debootstrap.
woolvalley 8y ago
I like how homebrew cask does it, where each cask is a formula to download the app into /Applications . You get the reproducibility of package lists, the speed of just typing an install / search command vs searching a website and the connivence of normal app installation and management.
vt240 8y ago
Occasionally, I still run into a piece of software which makes me yearn for the days when I built my own /usr/local from source. But as the repos have got better, this is getting to be a rare event. I still don't like the feeling of being boxed into the package management system. And the extra level of complication trying to manage issues from building software from source which reference package managed libraries and other dependencies.
colemickens 8y ago
There's no reason that they need to come from the developers. I'm maintaining over a dozen packages that build directly from HEAD that are all integrated with my package manager and allows anyone else to leverage my work and get my packages. Nix is the package manager that does this. It literally does damn near everything that comes out of every HN discussion of package managers, ever, but very few seem to bother investigating it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  There's several reasons for that, like it still means building from source, or that nix is basically its own programming language you have to learn. Also, if I understand how nix works correctly, it still can't create portable applications.
scarface74 8y ago
And then how do you find the software? Google? That’s fine until the top link is a third party that adds adware to the installer.