6 ms·

Bullshit. You're talking about an operating system where the common advice for someone who wants to install up to date software is to fucking compile it from so

Bullshit. You're talking about an operating system where the common advice for someone who wants to install up to date software is to fucking compile it from source because the whole community never got their collective shit together enough to allow developers to directly distribute binaries without a gigantic fucking headache. Christ, it's such a fucking mess that one of the most compatible ways to distribute software is to write it for Windows and rely on WINE.

busterarm 7y ago
Hardly. I've maybe had to do that 5 times in the last...10 years? And I split my time between Arch, CentOS & OpenBSD. The vast majority of things these days are packaged in a useful way. There's also flatpak and similar now.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > I've maybe had to do that 5 times in the last...10 years? Good for you. Some of us have to install up to date software more often than every 5 or 10 years.
  - busterarm 7y ago
    I'm running Arch on my office workstation. I install up to date software literally every day.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      Only after a third party makes an AUR for it. I'll stick to an OS where the developer can publish directly to the users without 15 different packaging formats, thanks.
      - ailideex 7y ago
        Again, flatpak, appimage, docker ... you can use one of these, don't have to use 15.
        AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        No, the developer can choose one of these. As a user, I have to deal with all of them because I cannot choose how the developer distributes it and there is no standard. If I could choose, I'd use AppImage for everything (since it is the only one that is portable) but I can't do that.
ailideex 7y ago
> compile it from source Way simpler to do on Linux than M$ Windows. > [no way to ] to directly distribute binaries without a gigantic fucking headache. I mean, flatpak, appimage, docker, etc ...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > Way simpler to do on Linux than M$ Windows. Completely unnecessary on Windows since it is an operating system, not a kludge of random source code from the internet. > I mean, flatpak, appimage, docker, etc ... Which of those is ubiquitous enough to ensure availability of what you're looking for in that format? In my experience: none of them. AppImage is easily the best, but the community seems to hate it because it makes things too flexible and simple or something.
  - ailideex 7y ago
    > Way simpler to do on Linux than M$ Windows. Where, pray tell, do people who write the software for this "operating system" store their source code if not somewhere that is connected to the internet? Do they use punch cards? > Which of those is ubiquitous enough to ensure availability of what you're looking for in that format? Have not met someone who hates AppImage. flatpak is also rather ubiquitous. I use both every day.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      > Have not met someone who hates AppImage Talk to Drew DeVault, to name one.

busterarm 7y ago

Hardly. I've maybe had to do that 5 times in the last...10 years? And I split my time between Arch, CentOS & OpenBSD. The vast majority of things these days are packaged in a useful way. There's also flatpak and similar now.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> I've maybe had to do that 5 times in the last...10 years? Good for you. Some of us have to install up to date software more often than every 5 or 10 years.
- busterarm 7y ago
  I'm running Arch on my office workstation. I install up to date software literally every day.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    Only after a third party makes an AUR for it. I'll stick to an OS where the developer can publish directly to the users without 15 different packaging formats, thanks.
    - ailideex 7y ago
      Again, flatpak, appimage, docker ... you can use one of these, don't have to use 15.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
        No, the developer can choose one of these. As a user, I have to deal with all of them because I cannot choose how the developer distributes it and there is no standard. If I could choose, I'd use AppImage for everything (since it is the only one that is portable) but I can't do that.

ailideex 7y ago

> compile it from source Way simpler to do on Linux than M$ Windows. > [no way to ] to directly distribute binaries without a gigantic fucking headache. I mean, flatpak, appimage, docker, etc ...

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> Way simpler to do on Linux than M$ Windows. Completely unnecessary on Windows since it is an operating system, not a kludge of random source code from the internet. > I mean, flatpak, appimage, docker, etc ... Which of those is ubiquitous enough to ensure availability of what you're looking for in that format? In my experience: none of them. AppImage is easily the best, but the community seems to hate it because it makes things too flexible and simple or something.
- ailideex 7y ago
  > Way simpler to do on Linux than M$ Windows. Where, pray tell, do people who write the software for this "operating system" store their source code if not somewhere that is connected to the internet? Do they use punch cards? > Which of those is ubiquitous enough to ensure availability of what you're looking for in that format? Have not met someone who hates AppImage. flatpak is also rather ubiquitous. I use both every day.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    > Have not met someone who hates AppImage Talk to Drew DeVault, to name one.