4 ms·

I see the repo model as the closest we've come to a solution. Not only are there mirrors in case the main repo drops, because all software is in one repo it's e

by franga2000 7y ago

I see the repo model as the closest we've come to a solution. Not only are there mirrors in case the main repo drops, because all software is in one repo it's extreme easy to cache/sync/download. Offline mirrors are even an officially supported use case with many package managers. Have enough space? Mirror the whole thing. Not? Select only the interesting package groups. Missed one? You can probably get it from another machine it's installed on. Want to have an offline copy of software on Windows? Go download all of the installers from their respective sites. Want it to constantly update - that's gonna be about 100 lines of Python code. And better make sure they're the "offline" installers, not those idiotic stubs that just dl the latest version for a server. Also don't forget about all of the 20 different VC++ runtimes that are sometimes not packaged in the installer. I have a feeling it would be even harder on macOS. (all of this is of course ignoring the legal issues of distributing those files - which is generally not an issue on Linux)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> because all software is in one repo All software is most definitely not in one repo. If it were, people wouldn't have to use PPAs or compile from source and deal with all the problems those things cause. > better make sure they're the "offline" installers, not those idiotic stubs that just dl the latest version for a server Oh, you mean the ones that aren't just acting like apt. > I have a feeling it would be even harder on macOS. Depends, but MacOS software that uses Application Bundles should be fine. Even a lot of Windows software works fine if you just copy the installer contents to a directory. Self-contained application directories (or single files) are an old as dirt concept that Linux communities never got behind, preferring instead to use overly complicated schemes like package management that come with a bunch of their own problems. So many, in fact, that people are now often distributing applications in Docker images.
- franga2000 7y ago
  I had a feeling PPAs would come up, but I've never had more then maybe 7 PPAs on any of my Ubuntu machines, which is still better then each program coming from a different site and with a different installer. Including PPAs in caches/backups is trivial. The way I see it there are 2 different use cases here: 1. You want a few individual apps kept safe on a USB stick in case you need them offline - installers on Win, AppImage on Linux 2. You want a constantly updated cache of the programs you use in case of the apocalypse - pain in the ass on Win, trivial on most Linux Windows only seems superior here because no. 2 is barely possible, so everyone has gotten good at no. 1.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > AppImage on Linux Oh, if only there were more than a handful of applications on Linux distributed as AppImage, and any support given to them at all by file browsers, life would be so much simpler. Linux community hates desktop so much they completely ignored an embedded ELF icon standard and have consistently poo-pooed every non-repo way of dealing with applications ever. > You want a constantly updated cache of the programs you use in case of the apocalypse Why would I want that? So I could discover that something I rely on was broken by a recent update only after I have no ability to do anything about it? Well, lets assume so. On Windows this is relatively simple, just keep a copy of Program Files and most applications will still work fine. It's not ideal, but I'll take it over package managers not even being able to install an application to a different disk.
    - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
      > just keep a copy of Program Files and most applications will still work fine In some mythical parallel dimension where the Windows system directory, user profile directories and the registry don't exist, sure.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        Applications rarely copy dlls to the system directory these days, as that led to horrifying DLL hell just like Linux has, where conflicts abound unless some central authority carefully manages everything. I routinely run about a hundred different applications portably from a thumb drive. Try that shit with Linux (it only works with AppImage!). User profile and registry are for settings. You can easily keep backups of those as well, but it isn't really necessary unless you have highly tweaked configurations or something. Have you not touched Windows since 1995?

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

> because all software is in one repo All software is most definitely not in one repo. If it were, people wouldn't have to use PPAs or compile from source and deal with all the problems those things cause. > better make sure they're the "offline" installers, not those idiotic stubs that just dl the latest version for a server Oh, you mean the ones that aren't just acting like apt. > I have a feeling it would be even harder on macOS. Depends, but MacOS software that uses Application Bundles should be fine. Even a lot of Windows software works fine if you just copy the installer contents to a directory. Self-contained application directories (or single files) are an old as dirt concept that Linux communities never got behind, preferring instead to use overly complicated schemes like package management that come with a bunch of their own problems. So many, in fact, that people are now often distributing applications in Docker images.

franga2000 7y ago
I had a feeling PPAs would come up, but I've never had more then maybe 7 PPAs on any of my Ubuntu machines, which is still better then each program coming from a different site and with a different installer. Including PPAs in caches/backups is trivial. The way I see it there are 2 different use cases here: 1. You want a few individual apps kept safe on a USB stick in case you need them offline - installers on Win, AppImage on Linux 2. You want a constantly updated cache of the programs you use in case of the apocalypse - pain in the ass on Win, trivial on most Linux Windows only seems superior here because no. 2 is barely possible, so everyone has gotten good at no. 1.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > AppImage on Linux Oh, if only there were more than a handful of applications on Linux distributed as AppImage, and any support given to them at all by file browsers, life would be so much simpler. Linux community hates desktop so much they completely ignored an embedded ELF icon standard and have consistently poo-pooed every non-repo way of dealing with applications ever. > You want a constantly updated cache of the programs you use in case of the apocalypse Why would I want that? So I could discover that something I rely on was broken by a recent update only after I have no ability to do anything about it? Well, lets assume so. On Windows this is relatively simple, just keep a copy of Program Files and most applications will still work fine. It's not ideal, but I'll take it over package managers not even being able to install an application to a different disk.
  - SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
    > just keep a copy of Program Files and most applications will still work fine In some mythical parallel dimension where the Windows system directory, user profile directories and the registry don't exist, sure.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Applications rarely copy dlls to the system directory these days, as that led to horrifying DLL hell just like Linux has, where conflicts abound unless some central authority carefully manages everything. I routinely run about a hundred different applications portably from a thumb drive. Try that shit with Linux (it only works with AppImage!). User profile and registry are for settings. You can easily keep backups of those as well, but it isn't really necessary unless you have highly tweaked configurations or something. Have you not touched Windows since 1995?