3 ms·

I agree, and I think that people are too emotionally invested in the package manager concept to back out now. I mean, for years Linux proponents have been touti

I agree, and I think that people are too emotionally invested in the package manager concept to back out now. I mean, for years Linux proponents have been touting it as the key advantage over software distribution on Macs/PCs.

hoistbypetard 7y ago
The existence and popularity of homebrew, macports and fink (on mac) and ninite, chocolatey, cygwin, mingw and nuget (on windows) would suggest that the concept appeals to mac and windows users also.
microcolonel 7y ago
I mean, it is a key advantage, on ArchLinux. If you don't have a rolling release, it's pure pain: you're often just stuck with old versions of software which aren't any more stable than the current stable release.
- TheCraiggers 7y ago
  It's only pure pain if you want bleeding edge AND stability. Non-rolling releases are just fine if you only need new features once a year.
  - snazz 7y ago
    Non-rolling releases might work with smaller software where your distro maintainers can backport security bugfixes easily, but as soon as your software gets too big and complicated the distro maintainers won't be able to backport fixes themselves and will have to just resort to packaging the latest version of certain packages (like Debian had to do with Chromium and Firefox). Also, for the most part, the "Arch is unstable" thing hasn't been true for a long time. I find that it's far more stable than Debian or Ubuntu LTS on my machine because of newer kernels containing newer hardware drivers.
    - zozbot234 7y ago
      You can run backported kernels on Debian and Ubuntu LTS too. On the latter it's pretty much the default - they provide "hardware enablement" releases so that users can avoid issues on cutting-edge hardware.
kelnos 7y ago
I think the empirical evidence is against you here, though. If package managers weren't a good way to do things, brew wouldn't exist. Neither would the Mac app store, or whatever the equivalent on Windows is these days. As a Debian user, I appreciate that the stuff I install had at least gone through some minimal vetting first. And if I have to add a third party repository or download something myself to run, I'm much more likely to view that as the possibly-dangerous action that it is, and try to actively assess the reputation and trustworthiness of what I'm installing. That's certainly not an average, noon-technical user thing, though. Vetted app stores are there to help average users avoid malware, assuming they're doing their job properly.
- gyuserbti 7y ago
  I agree with the OP a little. Central repository models have advantages but they've always seemed like short term benefits in exchange for long term costs. Things like the app store, in for profit scenarios, seem like ways to slip in monopoly control. Brew is an attempt to circumvent it. I don't want to come across as suggesting they're a bad idea or don't have advantages, just that on balance I've always had a sense there had to be a better way.
- sandov 7y ago
  > If package managers weren't a good way to do things, brew wouldn't exist. Package managers are an easy way to do things, most of the time. That's why brew exists. They are not a universally good way to distribute and install software. It twists the relationship between the software developer and the user.

hoistbypetard 7y ago

The existence and popularity of homebrew, macports and fink (on mac) and ninite, chocolatey, cygwin, mingw and nuget (on windows) would suggest that the concept appeals to mac and windows users also.

microcolonel 7y ago

I mean, it is a key advantage, on ArchLinux. If you don't have a rolling release, it's pure pain: you're often just stuck with old versions of software which aren't any more stable than the current stable release.

TheCraiggers 7y ago
It's only pure pain if you want bleeding edge AND stability. Non-rolling releases are just fine if you only need new features once a year.
- snazz 7y ago
  Non-rolling releases might work with smaller software where your distro maintainers can backport security bugfixes easily, but as soon as your software gets too big and complicated the distro maintainers won't be able to backport fixes themselves and will have to just resort to packaging the latest version of certain packages (like Debian had to do with Chromium and Firefox). Also, for the most part, the "Arch is unstable" thing hasn't been true for a long time. I find that it's far more stable than Debian or Ubuntu LTS on my machine because of newer kernels containing newer hardware drivers.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    You can run backported kernels on Debian and Ubuntu LTS too. On the latter it's pretty much the default - they provide "hardware enablement" releases so that users can avoid issues on cutting-edge hardware.

kelnos 7y ago

I think the empirical evidence is against you here, though. If package managers weren't a good way to do things, brew wouldn't exist. Neither would the Mac app store, or whatever the equivalent on Windows is these days. As a Debian user, I appreciate that the stuff I install had at least gone through some minimal vetting first. And if I have to add a third party repository or download something myself to run, I'm much more likely to view that as the possibly-dangerous action that it is, and try to actively assess the reputation and trustworthiness of what I'm installing. That's certainly not an average, noon-technical user thing, though. Vetted app stores are there to help average users avoid malware, assuming they're doing their job properly.

gyuserbti 7y ago
I agree with the OP a little. Central repository models have advantages but they've always seemed like short term benefits in exchange for long term costs. Things like the app store, in for profit scenarios, seem like ways to slip in monopoly control. Brew is an attempt to circumvent it. I don't want to come across as suggesting they're a bad idea or don't have advantages, just that on balance I've always had a sense there had to be a better way.
sandov 7y ago
> If package managers weren't a good way to do things, brew wouldn't exist. Package managers are an easy way to do things, most of the time. That's why brew exists. They are not a universally good way to distribute and install software. It twists the relationship between the software developer and the user.