4 ms·

> but if you say something like you don't want to use Linux because you think package management is a stupid way to manage applications then people just want yo

> but if you say something like you don't want to use Linux because you think package management is a stupid way to manage applications then people just want you to shut up. In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement. For instance, I believe that *not* having a package system is a stupid way to manage applications because: - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository; - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites; - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you; - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience. Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
> In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement. I have done this many times on HN, and it almost universally results in downvoting. > Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind. Fine, whatever. I don't need the fake internet points. Let me start by saying my complaints here are specifically in regards to the way Linux packages, repos, and managers work to avoid someone from Haiku showing up to tell me I'm wrong: - Repos are no better than walled gardens except that they are typically maintained by unpaid third parties - Said unpaid third parties sometimes introduce bugs or arbitrary changes to the software - You can't install applications to different disks or have multiple versions of the same application - Copying applications from one computer to another is massively complicated because most package managers never consider this use case at all - Package managers encourage the kind of interdependency hell and reliance on fixed paths that makes them necessary in the first place - The proliferation of package formats and package managers has made packaging binaries for Linux an incredible pain in the ass To address your points specifically: > - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository; This is true even in the repo world. You have to trust the developer of the application and the maintainer of the package for that repo at the very least. There is no reason someone cannot curate a repository of software that is not managed by and tied to a package manager and, in fact, there are many of these to choose from. > - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites; Yes, but I think that speaks to a failure of non-mobile OSs to implement proper application sandboxing once the internet became the dominant distribution medium for applications. I also think this threat is given far too much weight in comparison to being constrained in your choice of software. > - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you; Yes. Again, I don't think this is a big deal, especially when compared to restricting my choice in software. The thing I think makes personal computers valuable is that people can install pretty much whatever they want, make their own stuff, and easily pass it around. Package management and repos overcomplicates this. > - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience. Only under "installer/uninstaller" paradigms. "Portable Applications" in Windows, or Application Bundles on Mac or NeXT, or the original Macintosh's single-file applications, or RiscOS AppDirs, or even DOS's buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm make removing an application as simple as deleting a single object. Not to mention they make copying or moving applications, or running them on different media, as trivial as any file operation. I probably won't change your mind as a lot of this is subjective, equally your arguments do not sway me. Suffice it to say, the Linux community agrees with you, and that is part of the reason I don't want to use Linux.
- joshuaissac 5y ago
  You can use the "buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm" on Linux and Unix as well, but generally, applications are written with the assumption that they will be installed at a particular location, and can unexpectedly fail if you put them elsewhere. The RPM Package Manager itself is an example of this. It can be configured to be installed to a custom location via the build system, but it has hard-coded paths in some scripts so the package manager would break when it hits this code months after appearing to work correctly.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Right, theoretically Linux applications can work this way, there's even AppImage to really prove the point. The problem is that basically nothing in the Linux world does do that because it just isn't the way things are done. At the end of the day, it's the same difference to me.
    - guerrilla 5y ago
      Do you know about Snap and Flatpack? I think the latter may solve some of your problems. 1. https://snapcraft.io/ https://snapcraft.io/ 2. https://www.flatpak.org/ https://www.flatpak.org/
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28409524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28409524
- asddubs 5y ago
  good news for you is that linux is moving a bit more and more towards the portable application paradigm, with things like snap packages and AppImage. E.g. for texstudio I found that the version in my repos was outdated, so I just downloaded an AppImage file off their website and am using that now. Same for ultimaker cura. And you can use multiple versions in parallel.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

> In my experience people respond better when you actually explain and provides arguments to why you think “package management is a stupid way to manage applications” and not simply say this blanket statement. I have done this many times on HN, and it almost universally results in downvoting. > Now I would love to hear your arguments and, maybe, change my mind. Fine, whatever. I don't need the fake internet points. Let me start by saying my complaints here are specifically in regards to the way Linux packages, repos, and managers work to avoid someone from Haiku showing up to tell me I'm wrong: - Repos are no better than walled gardens except that they are typically maintained by unpaid third parties - Said unpaid third parties sometimes introduce bugs or arbitrary changes to the software - You can't install applications to different disks or have multiple versions of the same application - Copying applications from one computer to another is massively complicated because most package managers never consider this use case at all - Package managers encourage the kind of interdependency hell and reliance on fixed paths that makes them necessary in the first place - The proliferation of package formats and package managers has made packaging binaries for Linux an incredible pain in the ass To address your points specifically: > - you have to trust many more parties than a single repository; This is true even in the repo world. You have to trust the developer of the application and the maintainer of the package for that repo at the very least. There is no reason someone cannot curate a repository of software that is not managed by and tied to a package manager and, in fact, there are many of these to choose from. > - you incentivize people to do unsafe things like running downloaded exes from sites; Yes, but I think that speaks to a failure of non-mobile OSs to implement proper application sandboxing once the internet became the dominant distribution medium for applications. I also think this threat is given far too much weight in comparison to being constrained in your choice of software. > - now you need to also trust that no one tampered with the websites and have to manually checksum and verify authenticity of each application whereas a good package manager should do this for you; Yes. Again, I don't think this is a big deal, especially when compared to restricting my choice in software. The thing I think makes personal computers valuable is that people can install pretty much whatever they want, make their own stuff, and easily pass it around. Package management and repos overcomplicates this. > - Removing applications without package managers is a worse experience. Only under "installer/uninstaller" paradigms. "Portable Applications" in Windows, or Application Bundles on Mac or NeXT, or the original Macintosh's single-file applications, or RiscOS AppDirs, or even DOS's buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm make removing an application as simple as deleting a single object. Not to mention they make copying or moving applications, or running them on different media, as trivial as any file operation. I probably won't change your mind as a lot of this is subjective, equally your arguments do not sway me. Suffice it to say, the Linux community agrees with you, and that is part of the reason I don't want to use Linux.

joshuaissac 5y ago
You can use the "buncha-files-ina-folder paradigm" on Linux and Unix as well, but generally, applications are written with the assumption that they will be installed at a particular location, and can unexpectedly fail if you put them elsewhere. The RPM Package Manager itself is an example of this. It can be configured to be installed to a custom location via the build system, but it has hard-coded paths in some scripts so the package manager would break when it hits this code months after appearing to work correctly.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Right, theoretically Linux applications can work this way, there's even AppImage to really prove the point. The problem is that basically nothing in the Linux world does do that because it just isn't the way things are done. At the end of the day, it's the same difference to me.
  - guerrilla 5y ago
    Do you know about Snap and Flatpack? I think the latter may solve some of your problems. 1. https://snapcraft.io/ https://snapcraft.io/ 2. https://www.flatpak.org/ https://www.flatpak.org/
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28409524 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28409524
asddubs 5y ago
good news for you is that linux is moving a bit more and more towards the portable application paradigm, with things like snap packages and AppImage. E.g. for texstudio I found that the version in my repos was outdated, so I just downloaded an AppImage file off their website and am using that now. Same for ultimaker cura. And you can use multiple versions in parallel.