4 ms·

Ways I can install software in Ubuntu: Apt Dpkg Snap AppImage Flatpak Pip Cargo Homebrew Make install And there's pacman, nix, rpm, and a bunch of other packa

by Osiris 5y ago

Ways I can install software in Ubuntu: Apt Dpkg Snap AppImage Flatpak Pip Cargo Homebrew Make install And there's pacman, nix, rpm, and a bunch of other package managers for other distros. It's actual worse now than it's ever been. Every program seems to have a different way to install it, or multiple ways and the versions in each package manager are different.

capableweb 5y ago
Since openly development systems often give you the most choices, you have way more ways to install software than you listed. But for most purposes, what you'll need on a typical Ubuntu box is all available in the Apt repositories. Giving options doesn't mean you have to use those options. With Ubuntu, you can safely assume (most of the time) that what you need is in a Apt repository. Compare this with macOS where applications does really come from anywhere and it's not safe to assume you can install application from any one place.
- Osiris 5y ago
  In my experience, recently developed applications are rarely in Apt and use one of the above listed distribution methods. My counter-point to the parent is that installing software in Linux is NOT objectively better, in the sense that it's easier. Software that targets Linux almost always comes with installation instructions one must read (I'm not referring to the normal utilities, etc that have been around forever).
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    As an end-user who's barely involved in packaging anything, i strongly disagree with your point. On free systems, installing a package can either be super easy (apt install from official repos) or harder and you have to read instructions. It is harder to install software that has not been reviewed/vetted (yet) and as a user i believe that's a very good thing. That's the only reason out of the many non-technical GNU/Linux users i know, i've never even once seen a virus like i have seen the same people get on Windows/Mac. "Download & run" untrusted code from the Internet is very much an anti-pattern for security. I'm really glad AppImage exists for some usecases (as it does support PGP signatures for releases), but i'm really glad it's not the go-to method for releasing software. Also worth noting, there's exactly one reasonably-secure alternative to distro packages, and that's GNU/guix, another distro inspired by nix but with much higher security standards (bootstrappability, "channel introductions", etc). Maybe some day our distros will be packaged with GNU/guix and a GNOME Software (or equivalent) backend for graphical usage?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - laumars 5y ago
    I’d estimate that I need to read install instructions for maybe 1 in 20 pieces of software I install on desktop Linux (server is a little different because you’ll have config files that need to be coded in Ansible etc but we are talking desktop OSs anyways). Whereas if it wasn’t for homebrew, an unofficial hack, it would be 100% of software on macOS. That doesn’t strike me as Linux being particularly worse.
lelanthran 5y ago
> Ways I can install software in Ubuntu: > > Apt Dpkg Snap AppImage Flatpak Pip Cargo Homebrew Make install Ways most users install applications in Ubuntu - the software repo/software center. All those other options are options that most users don't use anyway. > And there's pacman, nix, rpm, and a bunch of other package managers for other distros. That's irrelevant - user's on a redhat system aren't going to get confused by the options for a debian system. You present those as if a user has to navigate all of those and make a decision which is patently incorrect. > Every program seems to have a different way to install it, You're correct, that is a recent thing and it's because software vendors (Microsoft, etc) are trying to make their delivery system the same for all supported platforms, so they tend to default for the lowest common denominator (i.e. the platform with the worst software installation support), which is Windows.
- packetlost 5y ago
  > You're correct, that is a recent thing and it's because software vendors (Microsoft, etc) are trying to make their delivery system the same for all supported platforms I don't think the state of Linux package management has anything to do with Microsoft.

by Osiris 5y ago

capableweb 5y ago

Since openly development systems often give you the most choices, you have way more ways to install software than you listed. But for most purposes, what you'll need on a typical Ubuntu box is all available in the Apt repositories. Giving options doesn't mean you have to use those options. With Ubuntu, you can safely assume (most of the time) that what you need is in a Apt repository. Compare this with macOS where applications does really come from anywhere and it's not safe to assume you can install application from any one place.

Osiris 5y ago
In my experience, recently developed applications are rarely in Apt and use one of the above listed distribution methods. My counter-point to the parent is that installing software in Linux is NOT objectively better, in the sense that it's easier. Software that targets Linux almost always comes with installation instructions one must read (I'm not referring to the normal utilities, etc that have been around forever).
- southerntofu 5y ago
  As an end-user who's barely involved in packaging anything, i strongly disagree with your point. On free systems, installing a package can either be super easy (apt install from official repos) or harder and you have to read instructions. It is harder to install software that has not been reviewed/vetted (yet) and as a user i believe that's a very good thing. That's the only reason out of the many non-technical GNU/Linux users i know, i've never even once seen a virus like i have seen the same people get on Windows/Mac. "Download & run" untrusted code from the Internet is very much an anti-pattern for security. I'm really glad AppImage exists for some usecases (as it does support PGP signatures for releases), but i'm really glad it's not the go-to method for releasing software. Also worth noting, there's exactly one reasonably-secure alternative to distro packages, and that's GNU/guix, another distro inspired by nix but with much higher security standards (bootstrappability, "channel introductions", etc). Maybe some day our distros will be packaged with GNU/guix and a GNOME Software (or equivalent) backend for graphical usage?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- laumars 5y ago
  I’d estimate that I need to read install instructions for maybe 1 in 20 pieces of software I install on desktop Linux (server is a little different because you’ll have config files that need to be coded in Ansible etc but we are talking desktop OSs anyways). Whereas if it wasn’t for homebrew, an unofficial hack, it would be 100% of software on macOS. That doesn’t strike me as Linux being particularly worse.

lelanthran 5y ago

> Ways I can install software in Ubuntu: > > Apt Dpkg Snap AppImage Flatpak Pip Cargo Homebrew Make install Ways most users install applications in Ubuntu - the software repo/software center. All those other options are options that most users don't use anyway. > And there's pacman, nix, rpm, and a bunch of other package managers for other distros. That's irrelevant - user's on a redhat system aren't going to get confused by the options for a debian system. You present those as if a user has to navigate all of those and make a decision which is patently incorrect. > Every program seems to have a different way to install it, You're correct, that is a recent thing and it's because software vendors (Microsoft, etc) are trying to make their delivery system the same for all supported platforms, so they tend to default for the lowest common denominator (i.e. the platform with the worst software installation support), which is Windows.

packetlost 5y ago
> You're correct, that is a recent thing and it's because software vendors (Microsoft, etc) are trying to make their delivery system the same for all supported platforms I don't think the state of Linux package management has anything to do with Microsoft.