5 ms·

> But please don't come along whining when it ends up unmaintainable, instable, or starts acting against you, like, you know, Windows does. As a die-hard linu

> But please don't come along whining when it ends up unmaintainable, instable, or starts acting against you, like, you know, Windows does. As a die-hard linux user, this line of thinking really plays against Linux. Software distribution hasn't caused problems in windows since XP. Likewise, all mac users seem pretty happy with .app bundles. > Second, linux distribution maintainers are usually much better informed about the technical details of installing software in a stable manner than any software vendor. Sure you can get your software from the vendor. But then you should be willing to accept that it is often broken, inefficient, and insecure. Software vendors have no interest whatsoever in installing their software in a professional and sustainable way on your system, package maintainers do. Do you realise how insulting this comes across ? As a software dev, my personal experience of "professional linux distro packagers" is people literally removing random lines of code of my software until it builds - who cares if it crashes as soon as you do more than open it anyways. I'd rather not have my software packaged than have it like that. My subjective experience from the software I use is that stuff like AppImage made straight by the dev is generally much more stable and works much better than whatever chtonian hack a debian packager decided to apply.

amoe_ 6y ago
Software distribution in Windows and Mac comes with a lot of problems, they are simply problems that you-personally don't see as part of the class of "distribution problems". Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Linux packages have a higher bar to meet for integration quality, and also have a more difficult job to do because of the more-fragmented nature of the platform. > As a software dev, my personal experience of "professional linux distro packagers" is people literally removing random lines of code of my software until it builds I'm sorry this happened, but I can assure you that the vast majority of maintainers do not do anything like this.
- fvdessen 6y ago
  One specific problem I always had in Linux but never had on other systems is installing a newer version of a software than the one that is present or supported by the official package manager. It's most of the time difficult, and sometimes impossible, which is very user hostile; I, the user, should be deciding which version of the software I want to run, not the distribution.
  - petepete 6y ago
    There are distributions that cater for the bleeding edge, there are distributions that focus on stability, there are plenty that fall somewhere between. But with any distro, you call install whatever you like wherever you want. You, the user, make that call. You, the user, should have the knowledge to tidy up if it goes wrong.
    - watermelon0 6y ago
      What if I want a stable distribution, but need latest versions of some software? Installing anything outside of distro repositories and Flatpak (& alternatives) is, in most cases, PITA. Tracking down missing dependencies, figuring out which libraries are compatible, downloading source for those libraries, because the system provided are outdated, etc. You can literally spend a whole day just building a somewhat simple application. I'm not a fan of binary blobs, like it's customary on macOS/Windows, but at least I can actually use an application in a minute or so, after downloading it. There is no fussing around, it just simply works.
      - ghthor 6y ago
        You should try out Arch linux or one of its derivatives. I never have any of the issue you're talking about, were almost always at the bleeding edge, and for packages that aren't, we have the AUR which is straightforward to build into your system from upstream git repositories.
        atoav 6y ago
        Arch looks tempting but my feeling is that a lot of software built by devs who run Arch needs initial help to run on Ubuntu/Debian. The other way around works better (software built to run on the latest Debian usually runs everywhere). Maybe that observation is incorrect, please give me data points. Also this won't mean you have to run Debian (but maybe a VM with Debian in it).
        6y ago
- MrScruff 6y ago
  What do you mean by post-install errors?
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Mac user here, can't ever remember encountering post-install errors with Mac software in 15+ years (bugs sure, like every software has, but nothing related to incomplete installation or whatever)... >Linux packages have a higher bar to meet for integration quality Isn't it actually a lower bar? They don't have to follow the platform's look and feel and UI libs (there isn't a standard, a distro can package Gnome, GTK+ only, KDE, XFCE, even CDE and Athena stuff, plus all kinds of ad-hoc UIs). They don't have to work with the same shortcuts, use the same system for configuration, or even play well with the same window compositor... When it comes to "integration quality" in Linux it's mostly "compiles with the distro's version of libs".
- qayxc 6y ago
  > lease don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Sorry to say, but I have to raise my hand here. The only post-installation issues I ever had on Mac and Windows were related to drivers, not applications. Plus since like a decade or so, I rarely "install" software on Windows anyway, because all the tools I use come as a "portable" version, which is just a ZIP archive. In an Apple-like fashion, these "just work" after unpacking to an arbitrary location (e.g. a USB-stick or SD-card)... What am I doing wrong here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- jcelerier 6y ago
  > Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. I don't remember the last time that happened. Not that I'd exchange my ArchLinux setup against either but you gotta be honest - installing stuff on windows and mac is a solved problem. However the number of times a Debian or Ubuntu update borked something... that I don't have enough fingers nor toes - I had at least 3 installs of debian that I fucked up enough that I couldn't recover them in the last ten years - in comparison the last time that happened for me on windows was in 98' era. Not that windows doesn't suck - I still get the occasional BSOD even on win10 while Linux kernel panics are... uncommon for me but that's just my experience).
- curt15 6y ago
  > Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software For most user-facing Mac software that comes with a GUI, there are no post-install. Installation simply consists of copying the application bundle into the /Applications folder.
totony 6y ago
>As a software dev, my personal experience of "professional linux distro packagers" is people literally removing random lines of code of my software until it builds - who cares if it crashes as soon as you do more than open it anyways. That is, at least in my experience, very false. They often do care about build systems more than the maintainers, as they're the ones who have to make it work for everyone. I've worked with the Gentoo packagers and those people I have interacted with have a lot of knowledge about how to distribute software. It's not for nothing the Gentoo community has to push changes upstream when upstream assumptions don't hold up downstream.
- plorkyeran 6y ago
  > They often do care about build systems more than the maintainers, as they're the ones who have to make it work for everyone. Every interaction I've had with packagers has been them trying to make the build system work for their single distro. None of them have ever tried to help make it work for "everyone" running linux, much less spend any time thinking about the other two platforms that have 90% of the actual users. IME they also tend to be much more focused on making the build system work on their distro than making the actual software work. Not surprising given that that's what they know, but they tend to be perfectly happy to make changes which cause functional problems to get things to build.
vaylian 6y ago
> As a die-hard linux user, this line of thinking really plays against Linux. Software distribution hasn't caused problems in windows since XP. Likewise, all mac users seem pretty happy with .app bundles. If you don't know what you are missing, you won't miss it.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Agreed. What happens in two weeks when a security vulnerability or data loss bug is identified and fixed? Nothing, unless you have a application-specific upgrade daemon running. Sounds like a good design, right? :)
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > What happens in two weeks when a security vulnerability or data loss bug is identified and fixed? The automatic update process breaks software by making incompatible changes, thus preventing a security problem by just not allowing me to run the software in the first place?
    - Krssst 6y ago
      Don't Linux distributions like Debian avoid this by backporting security fixes rather than upgrading to an incompatible version? https://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion https://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion
progval 6y ago
> As a software dev, my personal experience of "professional linux distro packagers" is people literally removing random lines of code of my software until it builds That's sad. But fortunately, not all packagers are like this. As a software dev too, I have a great experience with packagers from various distributions. When they have an issue (either build or runtime) they tell me about it and we discuss a patch together that I include in my next release. > My subjective experience from the software I use is that stuff like AppImage made straight by the dev is generally much more stable and works much better than whatever chtonian hack a debian packager decided to apply. Sure it works if you are in the most common case (Linux on x86_64), but it has some downsides: * It only supports CPU architectures the dev can build for * It only supports operating systems the dev can build for * The dev needs to publish an update every time there is a vulnerability in a bundled dependency (assuming they are even watching for vulnerabilities)
littlestymaar 6y ago
> Software distribution hasn't caused problems in windows since XP. The windows way of installing software (download random .exe or .msi files from random websites on the internet) has been a problem for every non tech-savy people and the people helping them manage their computer forever. Every modern OS comes with its own package manager nowadays for a good reason.
- atoav 6y ago
  Windows has chocolatey, which works quite okay. I usually use this with with automatic update scripts to keep the software on my parents windows machines up to date.
tarsinge 6y ago
Maybe differentiating between types of software could help? Desktop apps or games don't seem to have the same requirements as system and development stuff. As a Mac user I'm indeed pretty happy to have both app bundles and the Homebrew subsystem depending on the type of software I want to install.

amoe_ 6y ago

Software distribution in Windows and Mac comes with a lot of problems, they are simply problems that you-personally don't see as part of the class of "distribution problems". Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Linux packages have a higher bar to meet for integration quality, and also have a more difficult job to do because of the more-fragmented nature of the platform. > As a software dev, my personal experience of "professional linux distro packagers" is people literally removing random lines of code of my software until it builds I'm sorry this happened, but I can assure you that the vast majority of maintainers do not do anything like this.

fvdessen 6y ago
One specific problem I always had in Linux but never had on other systems is installing a newer version of a software than the one that is present or supported by the official package manager. It's most of the time difficult, and sometimes impossible, which is very user hostile; I, the user, should be deciding which version of the software I want to run, not the distribution.
- petepete 6y ago
  There are distributions that cater for the bleeding edge, there are distributions that focus on stability, there are plenty that fall somewhere between. But with any distro, you call install whatever you like wherever you want. You, the user, make that call. You, the user, should have the knowledge to tidy up if it goes wrong.
  - watermelon0 6y ago
    What if I want a stable distribution, but need latest versions of some software? Installing anything outside of distro repositories and Flatpak (& alternatives) is, in most cases, PITA. Tracking down missing dependencies, figuring out which libraries are compatible, downloading source for those libraries, because the system provided are outdated, etc. You can literally spend a whole day just building a somewhat simple application. I'm not a fan of binary blobs, like it's customary on macOS/Windows, but at least I can actually use an application in a minute or so, after downloading it. There is no fussing around, it just simply works.
    - ghthor 6y ago
      You should try out Arch linux or one of its derivatives. I never have any of the issue you're talking about, were almost always at the bleeding edge, and for packages that aren't, we have the AUR which is straightforward to build into your system from upstream git repositories.
      - atoav 6y ago
        Arch looks tempting but my feeling is that a lot of software built by devs who run Arch needs initial help to run on Ubuntu/Debian. The other way around works better (software built to run on the latest Debian usually runs everywhere). Maybe that observation is incorrect, please give me data points. Also this won't mean you have to run Debian (but maybe a VM with Debian in it).
        6y ago
MrScruff 6y ago
What do you mean by post-install errors?
coldtea 6y ago
>Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Mac user here, can't ever remember encountering post-install errors with Mac software in 15+ years (bugs sure, like every software has, but nothing related to incomplete installation or whatever)... >Linux packages have a higher bar to meet for integration quality Isn't it actually a lower bar? They don't have to follow the platform's look and feel and UI libs (there isn't a standard, a distro can package Gnome, GTK+ only, KDE, XFCE, even CDE and Athena stuff, plus all kinds of ad-hoc UIs). They don't have to work with the same shortcuts, use the same system for configuration, or even play well with the same window compositor... When it comes to "integration quality" in Linux it's mostly "compiles with the distro's version of libs".
qayxc 6y ago
> lease don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. Sorry to say, but I have to raise my hand here. The only post-installation issues I ever had on Mac and Windows were related to drivers, not applications. Plus since like a decade or so, I rarely "install" software on Windows anyway, because all the tools I use come as a "portable" version, which is just a ZIP archive. In an Apple-like fashion, these "just work" after unpacking to an arbitrary location (e.g. a USB-stick or SD-card)... What am I doing wrong here? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
jcelerier 6y ago
> Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software. I don't remember the last time that happened. Not that I'd exchange my ArchLinux setup against either but you gotta be honest - installing stuff on windows and mac is a solved problem. However the number of times a Debian or Ubuntu update borked something... that I don't have enough fingers nor toes - I had at least 3 installs of debian that I fucked up enough that I couldn't recover them in the last ten years - in comparison the last time that happened for me on windows was in 98' era. Not that windows doesn't suck - I still get the occasional BSOD even on win10 while Linux kernel panics are... uncommon for me but that's just my experience).
curt15 6y ago
> Please don't tell me you've never encountered post-install errors with Windows and Mac software For most user-facing Mac software that comes with a GUI, there are no post-install. Installation simply consists of copying the application bundle into the /Applications folder.

totony 6y ago

>As a software dev, my personal experience of "professional linux distro packagers" is people literally removing random lines of code of my software until it builds - who cares if it crashes as soon as you do more than open it anyways. That is, at least in my experience, very false. They often do care about build systems more than the maintainers, as they're the ones who have to make it work for everyone. I've worked with the Gentoo packagers and those people I have interacted with have a lot of knowledge about how to distribute software. It's not for nothing the Gentoo community has to push changes upstream when upstream assumptions don't hold up downstream.

plorkyeran 6y ago
> They often do care about build systems more than the maintainers, as they're the ones who have to make it work for everyone. Every interaction I've had with packagers has been them trying to make the build system work for their single distro. None of them have ever tried to help make it work for "everyone" running linux, much less spend any time thinking about the other two platforms that have 90% of the actual users. IME they also tend to be much more focused on making the build system work on their distro than making the actual software work. Not surprising given that that's what they know, but they tend to be perfectly happy to make changes which cause functional problems to get things to build.

vaylian 6y ago

> As a die-hard linux user, this line of thinking really plays against Linux. Software distribution hasn't caused problems in windows since XP. Likewise, all mac users seem pretty happy with .app bundles. If you don't know what you are missing, you won't miss it.

mixmastamyk 6y ago
Agreed. What happens in two weeks when a security vulnerability or data loss bug is identified and fixed? Nothing, unless you have a application-specific upgrade daemon running. Sounds like a good design, right? :)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > What happens in two weeks when a security vulnerability or data loss bug is identified and fixed? The automatic update process breaks software by making incompatible changes, thus preventing a security problem by just not allowing me to run the software in the first place?
  - Krssst 6y ago
    Don't Linux distributions like Debian avoid this by backporting security fixes rather than upgrading to an incompatible version? https://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion https://www.debian.org/security/faq#oldversion

progval 6y ago

> As a software dev, my personal experience of "professional linux distro packagers" is people literally removing random lines of code of my software until it builds That's sad. But fortunately, not all packagers are like this. As a software dev too, I have a great experience with packagers from various distributions. When they have an issue (either build or runtime) they tell me about it and we discuss a patch together that I include in my next release. > My subjective experience from the software I use is that stuff like AppImage made straight by the dev is generally much more stable and works much better than whatever chtonian hack a debian packager decided to apply. Sure it works if you are in the most common case (Linux on x86_64), but it has some downsides: * It only supports CPU architectures the dev can build for * It only supports operating systems the dev can build for * The dev needs to publish an update every time there is a vulnerability in a bundled dependency (assuming they are even watching for vulnerabilities)

littlestymaar 6y ago

> Software distribution hasn't caused problems in windows since XP. The windows way of installing software (download random .exe or .msi files from random websites on the internet) has been a problem for every non tech-savy people and the people helping them manage their computer forever. Every modern OS comes with its own package manager nowadays for a good reason.

atoav 6y ago
Windows has chocolatey, which works quite okay. I usually use this with with automatic update scripts to keep the software on my parents windows machines up to date.

tarsinge 6y ago

Maybe differentiating between types of software could help? Desktop apps or games don't seem to have the same requirements as system and development stuff. As a Mac user I'm indeed pretty happy to have both app bundles and the Homebrew subsystem depending on the type of software I want to install.