6 ms·

The only thing about Linux I never really like is the package system. Like if you want to install a new software, you usually don’t get .exe or .dmg. If you ar

The only thing about Linux I never really like is the package system. Like if you want to install a new software, you usually don’t get .exe or .dmg. If you are lucky, the developer or some fans took the time to package it. Then you can do ‘apt-get’ ‘yum’ or ‘pacman’. However, packages got stalled and sometimes don’t match the original author intent. You can also build from sources, but it takes time and you have to know a bit of CLI. It never felt true freedom to me. But more like whatever the community feels make sense for whatever distribution weird dictactorship. Just a feeling and I still love and support Linux.

mixedCase 8y ago
Between Flatpak and AppImages we have good solutions for both people who prefer package managers as well as people who prefer a single file that can be run on double click. As far as solutions goes, this problem is solved. They just need to be better known by software distributors.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  Flatpak is over-engineered garbage. You still can't even install things on different disks without setting up an entirely new 'installation' or whatever they call it. And you still need a repo. Meanwhile I can trivially make most Windows software work from a USB drive I can carry around between computers. AppImage can do that too, since it is a lot less over-engineered, but sadly very few developers use AppImage and it even distributions like Nitriux that claim to support AppImages don't display icons for them. Could be trivially solved with a standard for embedding icons in ELF, but the unix world hates the very concept of a program that isn't spread all over the file hierarchy and isn't full of hard-coded paths so it'll never happen.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
    I'm surprised to find that you have good luck with that; last time I looked, it was a nightmare for anything that didn't explicitly support portable mode because everything expects to save stuff into the registry.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      There are several tools to help with that, like the PortableApps.com launcher, JauntePE, or even Cameyo. Programs that just use config files can usually be dealt with without those kinds of wrappers by changing an environment variable. But if you don't mind not bringing the config with you (and it often isn't an issue in my experience), you can usually just drop the folder on the drive and you're done.
  - ti_ranger 8y ago
    > Flatpak is over-engineered garbage. But, it works, especially for the use case of the "I need the latest and greatest versions of two packages". > AppImage can do that too, since it is a lot less over-engineered, but sadly very few developers use AppImage and it even distributions like Nitriux that claim to support AppImages don't display icons for them. So, use one of the other 20 distros where AppImages just work, perfectly, out-the-box.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      Ignoring the issue with the oft-used fallback of distro roulette as a Linux evangelist defense mechanism, it isn't that they don't work, it's that their icons aren't displayed. There is not a single distro, including the ones that actually supposedly embrace AppImage, which displays AppImage icons correctly.
month13 8y ago
So strange, as i'm the polar opposite. I vastly prefer having everything update at once and be able to check versions, etc. I use homebrew and chocolately when I'm on macOS or Windows respectively to get that experience back. I can understand trying to resolve dependencies can be a royal pain, espescially trying to find the distro's specific naming conventions, like libpq-dev vs postgresql-libs
pedrocr 8y ago
I have the complete opposite experience. Everything I use is nicely packaged in Debian/Ubuntu. At most I need to add a new package source and then I get automatic updates. In Windows and OSX you used to need to manually install a bunch of packages from a bunch of locations, with very dubious security. No wonder they've both implement app stores.
gerdesj 8y ago
You clearly have never used Linux in any form. There are multiple package managers, granted. However, one strength they all share is: "you usually don't get .exe or .dmg"! Absolutely! Apps are integrated and not simply add-ons as they are in Windows or Apple land. When I want to install say libreoffice or wireshark I simply ask the system to install them. I absolutely do not browse the internet and download something, extract it and run some "installer". When I update my system, all apps and the OS are updated in one go. My system is curated for me, end to end, to a greater or lesser extent. When I update, all my system is updated - OS, apps and all. I don't think yours is (whatever it is).
- dsego 8y ago
  > When I update, all my system is updated - OS, apps and all. Except for when the distro "gods" don't bother updating a package for years, so you always get the "stable" 5-year old version.
  - gerdesj 8y ago
    Please give me an example. The Linux kernel is about a week old on this laptop. The current version of Windows server is called 2019, the last one was 2016 (rofl)
  - pnutjam 8y ago
    Most websites also have rpm's and Deb packages.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    And when the distro decides you have to give up some software because of a conflict it can't handle.
- sandov 8y ago
  But you have to live under the wing of your distro mantainers, instead of installing whatever you want from any third party. Isn't Linux supposed to be about freedom? Yes, you can install software using tarballs, but it's not usable for 90% of users, and not because of the distribution model, but because of the lack of standardization in a good, easy to use application-installing API.
young_unixer 8y ago
I agree with you. The OS should give you only some essential end user applications (a bare-bones text editor, a terminal, a browser) and then the user should get their specific use applications (DAW, 3D modelling software, game engine, etc) from the application developer, not the OS maker.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  We appear to be a dying breed. People who don't like walled gardens and middlemen between them and the people who make the tools they use.
  - maxerickson 8y ago
    There's not necessarily walls in the package manager model, in most cases it's possible to install binaries outside of the package manager. It's just less convenient.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      The same is true of the other walled gardens.
      - frankling_ 8y ago
        I fail to see how the package management in a Linux distribution could be considered a walled garden. Commonly it's cited as the exact opposite of that (see the table here: [1]). What type of freedom are you missing in something like Debian, where you can edit and recompile the core components of your system at a whim, the system even supporting you through source packages, and where anything outside the package management is just a "git clone" and a compilation away? I really don't know what more anyone could ask for. Certainly we don't want to go back to the 90s way of downloading unsigned .exe files from some random guy's web site and then going hunting for matching DLLs? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform
ams6110 8y ago
Here is what makes Linux work well for me: only run LTS versions. Never build your own kernel. Never install anything that isn't in the package manager.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  IS good soviet citizen, never uses software not approved by party.
- sandov 8y ago
  >Never install anything that isn't in the package manager. If I wanted to not get any work done I would be using Windows instead.
ti_ranger 8y ago
> The only thing about Linux I never really like is the package system. I think you just haven't used it enough to understand the advantages. If you don't need the lastest-and-greatest released last week versions, the package system is much more efficient that individually downloading hundreds of packages. While Mac OS X has homebrew, it is still deficient in my opinion compared to most distros (because casks don't get upgraded by default). > Like if you want to install a new software, you usually don’t get .exe or .dmg. Why would I want either? Both have lots of issues. For example, by default: * No auto-update * Duplication of libraries and other files I already have * Spotty updates (e.g. who can be sure whether all libraries used have been patched by the latest version you have)? > If you are lucky, the developer or some fans took the time to package it. This is the case for > 99% of the software I use, even obscure stuff. For the other < 1%, I package it for the distro I use, and submit it so it is available by default in future releases. These days, many popular packages also provide .appimage files (similar to .app files on Mac OS X) or publish Flatpak's (including Slack, Spotify, VS Code, Skype etc. etc.), and these can be used on any recent distro. > Then you can do ‘apt-get’ ‘yum’ or ‘pacman’. However, packages got stalled and sometimes don’t match the original author intent. Sometimes the original author doesn't know best ... in most cases packagers upstream their changes or discuss them with upstream. > You can also build from sources, but it takes time and you have to know a bit of CLI. It never felt true freedom to me. But more like whatever the community feels make sense for whatever distribution weird dictactorship. Just a feeling and I still love and support Linux. It seems like you never exercised your ability to vote, and think that everyone else is dictating to you ...

mixedCase 8y ago

Between Flatpak and AppImages we have good solutions for both people who prefer package managers as well as people who prefer a single file that can be run on double click. As far as solutions goes, this problem is solved. They just need to be better known by software distributors.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
Flatpak is over-engineered garbage. You still can't even install things on different disks without setting up an entirely new 'installation' or whatever they call it. And you still need a repo. Meanwhile I can trivially make most Windows software work from a USB drive I can carry around between computers. AppImage can do that too, since it is a lot less over-engineered, but sadly very few developers use AppImage and it even distributions like Nitriux that claim to support AppImages don't display icons for them. Could be trivially solved with a standard for embedding icons in ELF, but the unix world hates the very concept of a program that isn't spread all over the file hierarchy and isn't full of hard-coded paths so it'll never happen.
- yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
  I'm surprised to find that you have good luck with that; last time I looked, it was a nightmare for anything that didn't explicitly support portable mode because everything expects to save stuff into the registry.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    There are several tools to help with that, like the PortableApps.com launcher, JauntePE, or even Cameyo. Programs that just use config files can usually be dealt with without those kinds of wrappers by changing an environment variable. But if you don't mind not bringing the config with you (and it often isn't an issue in my experience), you can usually just drop the folder on the drive and you're done.
- ti_ranger 8y ago
  > Flatpak is over-engineered garbage. But, it works, especially for the use case of the "I need the latest and greatest versions of two packages". > AppImage can do that too, since it is a lot less over-engineered, but sadly very few developers use AppImage and it even distributions like Nitriux that claim to support AppImages don't display icons for them. So, use one of the other 20 distros where AppImages just work, perfectly, out-the-box.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    Ignoring the issue with the oft-used fallback of distro roulette as a Linux evangelist defense mechanism, it isn't that they don't work, it's that their icons aren't displayed. There is not a single distro, including the ones that actually supposedly embrace AppImage, which displays AppImage icons correctly.

month13 8y ago

So strange, as i'm the polar opposite. I vastly prefer having everything update at once and be able to check versions, etc. I use homebrew and chocolately when I'm on macOS or Windows respectively to get that experience back. I can understand trying to resolve dependencies can be a royal pain, espescially trying to find the distro's specific naming conventions, like libpq-dev vs postgresql-libs

pedrocr 8y ago

I have the complete opposite experience. Everything I use is nicely packaged in Debian/Ubuntu. At most I need to add a new package source and then I get automatic updates. In Windows and OSX you used to need to manually install a bunch of packages from a bunch of locations, with very dubious security. No wonder they've both implement app stores.

gerdesj 8y ago

You clearly have never used Linux in any form. There are multiple package managers, granted. However, one strength they all share is: "you usually don't get .exe or .dmg"! Absolutely! Apps are integrated and not simply add-ons as they are in Windows or Apple land. When I want to install say libreoffice or wireshark I simply ask the system to install them. I absolutely do not browse the internet and download something, extract it and run some "installer". When I update my system, all apps and the OS are updated in one go. My system is curated for me, end to end, to a greater or lesser extent. When I update, all my system is updated - OS, apps and all. I don't think yours is (whatever it is).

dsego 8y ago
> When I update, all my system is updated - OS, apps and all. Except for when the distro "gods" don't bother updating a package for years, so you always get the "stable" 5-year old version.
- gerdesj 8y ago
  Please give me an example. The Linux kernel is about a week old on this laptop. The current version of Windows server is called 2019, the last one was 2016 (rofl)
- pnutjam 8y ago
  Most websites also have rpm's and Deb packages.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  And when the distro decides you have to give up some software because of a conflict it can't handle.
sandov 8y ago
But you have to live under the wing of your distro mantainers, instead of installing whatever you want from any third party. Isn't Linux supposed to be about freedom? Yes, you can install software using tarballs, but it's not usable for 90% of users, and not because of the distribution model, but because of the lack of standardization in a good, easy to use application-installing API.

young_unixer 8y ago

I agree with you. The OS should give you only some essential end user applications (a bare-bones text editor, a terminal, a browser) and then the user should get their specific use applications (DAW, 3D modelling software, game engine, etc) from the application developer, not the OS maker.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
We appear to be a dying breed. People who don't like walled gardens and middlemen between them and the people who make the tools they use.
- maxerickson 8y ago
  There's not necessarily walls in the package manager model, in most cases it's possible to install binaries outside of the package manager. It's just less convenient.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    The same is true of the other walled gardens.
    - frankling_ 8y ago
      I fail to see how the package management in a Linux distribution could be considered a walled garden. Commonly it's cited as the exact opposite of that (see the table here: [1]). What type of freedom are you missing in something like Debian, where you can edit and recompile the core components of your system at a whim, the system even supporting you through source packages, and where anything outside the package management is just a "git clone" and a compilation away? I really don't know what more anyone could ask for. Certainly we don't want to go back to the 90s way of downloading unsigned .exe files from some random guy's web site and then going hunting for matching DLLs? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_platform

ams6110 8y ago

Here is what makes Linux work well for me: only run LTS versions. Never build your own kernel. Never install anything that isn't in the package manager.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
IS good soviet citizen, never uses software not approved by party.
sandov 8y ago
>Never install anything that isn't in the package manager. If I wanted to not get any work done I would be using Windows instead.

ti_ranger 8y ago

> The only thing about Linux I never really like is the package system. I think you just haven't used it enough to understand the advantages. If you don't need the lastest-and-greatest released last week versions, the package system is much more efficient that individually downloading hundreds of packages. While Mac OS X has homebrew, it is still deficient in my opinion compared to most distros (because casks don't get upgraded by default). > Like if you want to install a new software, you usually don’t get .exe or .dmg. Why would I want either? Both have lots of issues. For example, by default: * No auto-update * Duplication of libraries and other files I already have * Spotty updates (e.g. who can be sure whether all libraries used have been patched by the latest version you have)? > If you are lucky, the developer or some fans took the time to package it. This is the case for > 99% of the software I use, even obscure stuff. For the other < 1%, I package it for the distro I use, and submit it so it is available by default in future releases. These days, many popular packages also provide .appimage files (similar to .app files on Mac OS X) or publish Flatpak's (including Slack, Spotify, VS Code, Skype etc. etc.), and these can be used on any recent distro. > Then you can do ‘apt-get’ ‘yum’ or ‘pacman’. However, packages got stalled and sometimes don’t match the original author intent. Sometimes the original author doesn't know best ... in most cases packagers upstream their changes or discuss them with upstream. > You can also build from sources, but it takes time and you have to know a bit of CLI. It never felt true freedom to me. But more like whatever the community feels make sense for whatever distribution weird dictactorship. Just a feeling and I still love and support Linux. It seems like you never exercised your ability to vote, and think that everyone else is dictating to you ...