13 ms·

I'm on an Ubuntu 22.04 Desktop computer. I click on the big green Free Download button. It downloads a .tar.bz2 file. I double-click on that in the Firefox d

I'm on an Ubuntu 22.04 Desktop computer. I click on the big green Free Download button. It downloads a .tar.bz2 file. I double-click on that in the Firefox download manager. It opens the Gnome archive extractor. I'm looking at... .gif files? .so files? I see something called "thunderbird" and another thing called "thunderbird-bin". I double-click on those and some other dialog pops up that says "No applications found for 'thunderbird'". Will desktop Linux ever solve these basic usability problems? Or will this always just be user error! you're doing it wrong!

eointierney 4y ago
Yes, Linux has (partially) done this already, albeit with some user interface incongruities, check out nixos and guix Hey NixOS and Guix communities! Your theory is awesome, your practice is great, we just need to work on making this trivial for children. Always think of the children
rtpg 4y ago
Don’t blame Linux as a whole for Thunderbird not packaging a .deb file. (EDIT: or an AppImage file. I get everyone is not on Ubuntu/Debian)
- NavinF 4y ago
  I’ll blame Linux as a whole for every app needing several deb files (one per distro Ubuntu/Debian/etc and one per LTS), several rpm files (one per distro RH/Fedora/etc and one per LTS), and several <100+ chars omitted for brevity). On other platforms (Windows, macOS, Android, iOS) it’s fairly common to distribute GUI apps as a single binary so you don’t need an army of package maintainers. Perks of having many years of ABI stability.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    I’d be perfectly fine with everyone switching over to .deb files. Sadly it seems AppImage is more popular these days.
    - NavinF 4y ago
      Sure, I’d be fine with any standard. It’s just insane how just about every distro has its own sporadically updated repo instead of sharing common packages. Projects that need to be patched and rebuilt should be the exception, not the rule. Scroll down and you’ll see people arguing about supported features because they’re running an ancient version of Thunderbird supplied by their distro.
    - oldjavacoder 4y ago
      From what I've seen, .deb is still king over rpm, appimage, flatpak and snap.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    'Linux as a whole' has nothing to do with .deb files.
    - NavinF 4y ago
      That’s kinda my point.
      - OJFord 4y ago
        Sorry yes I overreacted to the first sentence without understanding the tone. I think it's unfortunate anyone offers .deb (or similar) downloads really - the many Linux distros don't have a single packaging mechanism, so why pretend they do, or that your app's not going to work on the ones you don't provide? Just say it's built for Linux, perhaps here's a binary, here's the source if available, this is the preferred name, go and check your package manager.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    > On other platforms (Windows, macOS, Android, iOS) it’s fairly common to distribute GUI apps as a single binary so you don’t need an army of package maintainers. You can do this on Linux, too, be it by compiling a static binary or bundling everything as an AppImage or what have you.
    - hilbert42 4y ago
      So why isn't it do more widely when it would convenience many users? Frankly, I find it annoying that it isn't done as a matter of course.
      - hilbert42 4y ago
        Typo sorry, it's 'done' not 'do'.
      - yellowapple 4y ago
        I agree. Thankfully, enough others agree that there are AppImages and other single-file executables for all sorts of Linux software.
  - rtpg 4y ago
    I believe most projects that serve debs from their own download page do not try to package for each distro separately, and instead opt to package up requirements as needed. I can't comment deeply on deb vs rpm, it is kinda disappointing that we have this split, and I don't know if there's a great way to merge it back. Mac does have a good distribution story. This also exists on Linux in the form of app images. The one missing piece is that Mac has the Applications convention. AppImageLauncher[0] solves this, but really it would be good for Gnome/KDE to just integrate this concept. That gives the (important!) "have the application show up in the application launcher" option. I do not believe one could qualify Windows programs as being distributed as a single binary. A single installer, perhaps! But many Windows programs dump files all over your file tree to do things, and then goes to touch stuff in your registry. There's a reason we have "portable executables" for windows as its own download option! [0]: https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Who are you blaming, exactly? There’s no project or organization called “Linux as a whole”.
    - jjj123 4y ago
      A problem can’t be blamed on a single entity is still a problem, right? I think OP was just explaining the issue.
    - notriddle 4y ago
      That's exactly what the problem is. The diffusion of responsibility makes it a decades-long problem and nobody has the responsibility or the power to fix it.
      - School-Cotton 4y ago
        OK, so, why bother complaining about it? Use Linux if it does what you want, otherwise use macOS or Windows.
        notriddle 4y ago
        Because I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want: * A desktop package that isn’t a vehicle for ads (like Windows and ChromeOS). * A desktop package that doesn’t require you to write your own one-off scripts to work around stupid deficiencies (like GNU/Linux). * A desktop package that doesn’t constantly throw away all its “legacy” and break a bunch of stuff (like Mac).
        School-Cotton 4y ago
        It’s indeed not unreasonable to want that, but there does not exist any incentive structure that would cause it to exist. It’s not the fault of some person or group of people doing something wrong; it’s simply a logical consequence of what Linux is.
- WatchDog 4y ago
  You can blame Linux distros as a whole, for being obsessed with dynamic linking shared libraries. The Linux kernel itself has a well publicized policy of not breaking user space and binary compatibility, but pretty much all distros regularly break binary compatibility, they require software to dynamically link to os provided shared libraries, and they don't allow statically linked programs to be distributed using their package managers. Packaging and distributing software for windows or macOS is really easy. Doing the same for Linux, particularly desktop applications, is a huge pain. It's a point that Linus Torvalds has often bemoaned[0][1]. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whs8QZf3YnifdLv57+FhBi5_WeNTG1B-suOES=RcUSmQg@mail.gmail.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whs8QZf3YnifdLv57+FhBi5_W... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8379139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8379139
  - usrn 4y ago
    You can statically link your apps just fine as long as you follow the license for the libraries you're linking (in the case of libc, the LGPL.) Before you get upset about this Windows does the same thing with their C runtime (although the license terms are different.) Ever seen the installer for it when you install another app? That's exactly what's going on. Go nearly always does this for example (although in some version they switched to dynamically linking to glibc for the stub resolver) and you can take statically linked go binaries and copy them to totally different OSes as long as the architecture is compatible. I remember taking a copy of syncthing and copying it between my Android and a Raspberry pi at one point (or maybe it was a kindle and a raspberry pi) which run totally different OSes and it worked just fine (ignoring the Android stupidity of course.)
  - rtpg 4y ago
    I mean you can put up a `.deb` with a statically linked binary on your download page right? You can also use stuff like App Image right? It's not like nobody has ever put a go binary into a .deb before. I don't think comparing "state of packages got off of apt" to "state of downloaded installers for Mac/Windows" is an apples to apples comparison.
    - WatchDog 4y ago
cowtools 4y ago
I think you are doing this wrong. If I want to install some software on linux, I install it from my distro's package repository or I compile it myself. There's no reason to expect different linux distros to have binary compatibility. This isn't closed-source software on a backwards-compatable ABI like on windows, there's no reason to install binaries from an unsigned source. If the developers of thunderbird want, they can supply a binary compiled against your specific distro/version, or a statically-linked binary, or a container like an AppImage
- Yhippa 4y ago
  It’s astounding that someone new to Linux has to wrap their head around all of that. It actually kind of makes it like a cool, secret club.
  - oldjavacoder 4y ago
    What's truly astounding is that Windows and Mac have developed their own Linux like distribution managers over the years indicating it's probably far better than the proprietary crap they created in the first place.
  - diffeomorphism 4y ago
    It is astounding that you think phones need you to join a "cool, secret club". Open app store, click install is not new, not secret and much easier than download stuff from websites to sideload.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Avamander 4y ago
    It's not a problem for new Linux users, it's a problem for old Windows new Linux users who are accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of Windows.
riverdroid 4y ago
The easiest and best way for you (you'll get updates through signed packages, etc) is probably to install via the Ubuntu Software Center. Though it can be difficult to download and run random software from the internet, I have to say, most Linux distributions have got the software distribution challenge through their package managers right compared to OSX and Windows. First thing I do on an OSX machine is install homebrew which helps a little.
- pleb_nz 4y ago
  I don't use unbuntu. But doesn't it's software centre always try to push you to snaps? Or can this be disabled. Last thing I would want is snap variants.
  - quotemstr 4y ago
    Moving to Snaps gets us to a world of sandboxed applications, defined permissions, and OS version independence. That's the world that exists on mobile, and it's pretty great. Shouldn't desktop learn from mobile's successful experiment in sandboxing?
    - nijave 4y ago
      Flatpak seems a little less finicky but slightly less user friendly (you manage your own repos/sources)
    - jeroenhd 4y ago
      They should, that's why Flatpak is excellent for wide-spread, cross-distro software support. Snap is a slightly worse, proprietary sandboxing mechanism pushed by Canonical, the people making money off it. It has some fundamental problems (boot being slowed down by all the snaps being mounted, for example, Firefox acting weird and sometimes not even launching until I reboot since 22.04) and some ideological problems (the fact you can't host your own snap store without paying Canonical, the fact Snap blatantly refuses to follow standards like XDG or even just folder naming in the home directories, forcing a lowercase "snap" folder on everyone). Some people are against the appification that's taking a toll on user freedom. Some people are in favour of the excellent permission monitoring and dependency conflict resolution it allows. Both sides seem to conclude that snap isn't the right answer.
ryukafalz 4y ago
This is at least partly on Thunderbird’s end. The more user friendly thing to do these days would be to distribute packages for each distro, which would behave a lot more like you’re expecting. But “desktop Linux” is not an entity that can solve anything. It’s a loose collection of people and organizations all doing their own thing. If Thunderbird gives you an installer on Windows and an archive full of files rather than an installer on Linux, well…
- Gigachad 4y ago
  This problem is largely solved via flatpak. The link can download a small config file that tells your software installer gui where to grab the package. It then installs and updates like you’d expect any app. Software does need to stop linking to these tar files.
  - sph 4y ago
    Especially since there already is an unofficial Thunderbird flatpak that works pretty well.
  - badsectoracula 4y ago
    Personally i'd rather download a tarball with the binaries, put the program in a directory of my choice and if needed install the necessary libraries from my distro's package manager. So i wouldn't like it if programs stopped distributing those.
- bravetraveler 4y ago
  They surely have their own technical problems, but AppImages that maintain themselves are particularly friendly as well. It's about as similar to the 'download untrusted software, double click to run it, and hope/pray/assume it handles updates itself' workflow found elsewhere as you can get. I have several non-technical family members using Linux. They don't struggle getting software at all, regardless of it not being just-like-others. There's software portals just like the stores on other platforms and they generally bridge the gap between packages/containers well. Nobody installs from archives like Slackware anymore, or they shouldn't.
ajross 4y ago
"Download this blob and run it to install software systemwide" isn't something that works well on any platform anymore, FWIW, and you shouldn't do it even (especially) if it's cleanly package in a self-executing installer. Ubuntu provides thunderbird both as a stable release and as a containerized snap with rolling release semantics. Snap downloads are authenticated and secure. Get it from here if you want the latest and greatest, though they haven't blessed 102 as stable yet (it's still "latest/candidate" as of right now): https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird In this case, though, I think you're complaining overmuch. What you got was a tarball intended for install from the command line, which is a distribution format well-understood by Linux hackers since before most of the commenters here were born. It's certainly not a "basic usability problem" to provide software in a consistent format for 30 years!
Aeolun 4y ago
I mean, if you are on windows and you start downloading .dmg files that’s user error. If you are on Debian’ish and you download anything other than .deb files I don’t know what you expect.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> you're doing it wrong! You... kind of are though, to the extent that what you tried wouldn't work on Windows either (equivalent to trying to run a program in a zip without extracting it). Extract the directory and run the thing called thunderbird in it.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  Except most folks distribute self-extracting archives or an MSI for Windows.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    And most people distribute .deb files for Linux.
    - inferiorhuman 4y ago
      My experience is that tarballs and RPMs are most common. Regardless there's a lot more diversity in how things are packaged on Linux than on Windows or OSX. Even if I get a tarball on OSX I can double click on it and then drag the application into the "Applications" directory or run the installer. I'm not sure why this is so challenging on Linux.
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        Both macOS and windows made the choice to make programs mostly self contained things that can be just dragged in. Linux distros have a complex network of dependancies, config files, and general crap that requires sophisticated tooling to manage which is different on different distros. All to save a few kb of storage space.
        bogwog 4y ago
        When you download a tarball from the internet containing an application, usually (unless they messed up/don't know what they're doing) that means most if not all dependencies are fully contained in that archive, except for things you can't really do that for, like libc. The point of a tarball is to avoid the system package manager, which makes it easier to reach more distros at the cost of an increased risk it simply won't work on some systems (due to missing system libraries or different versions). The real reason macOS and Windows are easier to distribute software on is because there's only one Windows and only one macOS. "Linux" is not an operating system, Ubuntu, Arch, Fedora, RHEL, etc. are all different operating systems that just so happen to share a kernel and a similar ecosystem of open source software. So compatibility between them is more of a coincidence than anything else. Luckily nowadays we have Flatpaks and AppImages, which both solve the problem of simplifying app distribution and installation universally for all distros. Although devs will probably get a lot of hate if they only distribute their app as a Flatpak or AppImage and don't also offer tarballs/debs/rpms...so app distribution is likely to remain complicated for a while.
soulofmischief 4y ago
The problem exists between chair and keyboard. You don't understand how archives work and are trying to run a program with many files from an archive before first extracting it to a folder in your filesystem. You could have taken this time spent blaming Linux and used it to google around a little bit and learn something new. I recommend learning a bit about how your filesystem works and why it can't find linked files from within an archive. This is essential computing knowledge. The fact that you are not aware that Ubuntu comes with a software package manager means you are still inexperienced and should not blame the system until you have spent more time with it. You similarly shouldn't blame a car for bad UX because you have to take a class and multiple exams before understanding how to use it?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- breadloaf 4y ago
  User has no business in learning anything about file systems. This is basic UX error and one of many cuts, which are keeping Desktop Linux on its 1% market share.
- VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
  So do I wget the big green Free Download link instead of click on it? Do I then cd to my Downloads folder and tar xf on the file? And then I cd into the extracted directory and ./thunderbird? ... We see the usability problems here.
- awill 4y ago
  I sort of read the OPs message ironically. The OPs point is that this stuff is broken compared to how a Windows or Mac user would do things. Windows/Mac users just click download, and double click. Linux could get to the same spot (more or less) by using Flatpak. I think that has to be the answer here. It's absurd to expect a developer to build their app for a dozen different distros.
- quotemstr 4y ago
  > I recommend learning a bit about how your filesystem works and why it can't find linked files from within an archive. This is essential computing knowledge Billions of people use computers (most of which are, for historical reasons, called "phones") that require none of this "essential" knowledge, and they do just fine. Don't you think humanity is better off for freeing all these people from having to spend their brief time on Earth from having to learn about archives and filesystems? Sometimes difficulty isn't a mark of virtue but instead just pointless pain.
usrn 4y ago
TBH that's a feature not a bug. If you don't know what to do here you probably don't know enough to evaluate the safety of the software you just downloaded. Your distro maintainers will pick it up soon and it will show up on your machine the next time you run apt upgrade. Note that no one is stopping you from running thunderbird. It sounds like you downloaded a dynamically linked binary distribution and there's probably just an elf file you need to run. Otherwise if the binary is incompatible you can build it from the source (I've never tried thunderbird, Firefox is a bit much but it's doable and there are of course ways to automate it such as running a Gentoo prefix or using the spec files from your distribution itself.) EDIT: Linux is fine for everyone. Installing bleeding edge software from web sites is not for everyone.
- jjj123 4y ago
  Sounds like you and the OP agree, that Linux isn’t for everyone?
- moralestapia 4y ago
  Yeah sure, just don't complain when Linux falls below 1% in market share.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Who is complaining? I don't often see Linux users complaining that its market share is low, outside of free software ideologues. This seems to be 99% a strawman. I don't care if Linux has 0.00000001% market share as long as it still does what I want.
- alexb_ 4y ago
  > Note that no one is stopping you from running thunderbird. It sounds like you downloaded a dynamically linked binary distribution and there's probably just an elf file you need to run. Otherwise if the binary is incompatible you can build it from the source (I've never tried thunderbird, Firefox is a bit much but it's doable and there are of course ways to automate it such as running a Gentoo prefix or using the spec files from your distribution itself.) You should put yourself in the mind of someone who doesn't work with computers for a living. Then, read that to yourself again and see how much of it is complete nonsense. You should not have to know what any of those words mean to use an operating system, and if you do that is either the fault of the OS or the software, not the fault of the user.
OJFord 4y ago
> Or will this always just be user error! you're doing it wrong! I suppose this is what my reply will boil down to, but also isn't that fine? You could do something unusual on macOS or Windows and there too throw your hands up in mock shock that it was to be labelled 'user error'. Anyway, when I want to install software on Linux I type `yay -Ss software` (on my work/personal machines) or `apt search software` (on a Debian derivative image) etc., and then install what I've found similarly. Thunderbird could do better here - greenfield software today might offer a Snap or Flatpak package there for example - but I don't think download via vendor website is the norm on any distribution; it tends to work on macOS & Windows, but is decreasingly primary even there; it probably could launch Ubuntu Software Center (or whatever it is) as it does App Store.app on macOS - but who wants to look up what to do and maintain everything like that for N top Linux distros? If it were me I think I'd just have a dummy button, conveying somehow that it 'works on Linux, you should refer to your package manager'.
vonwoodson 4y ago
You might be right. Here’s some help on how to install Thunderbird on GNU/Linux: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/installing-thunderbird-linux https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/installing-thunderbird-...
dmustillo 4y ago
It blows my mind how many comments here think you are wrong. You are absolutely correct. A new user does not care how great x,y,z feature is if they can't do basic things that are ubiquitous in other operating systems. New users might hear Unix is better, but if it doesn't feel that way, they're going to go back to what they know works when the next deliverable/project/essay/game comes out.
- usrn 4y ago
  If Linux distros implemented every feature "new users" wanted then you would end up with something nearly identical to ChromiumOS (and those same users would probably just run ChromeOS.) If you want that then go run that. EDIT: Everyone here knows how to type "sudo apt install thunderbird." People are failing to install bleeding edge software. This shouldn't be surprising or upsetting.
  - suby 4y ago
    This isn't just a feature, this is installing apps. Many users are failing to install apps. Users on this forum, even, which is telling because this forum is a sort of filter to select those who are more tech savy than the average person. There is a usability issue here that absolutely should be talked about and addressed, which involves a solution that isn't "switch to chrome OS".
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      I would hazard a guess that many users on this forum are really only familiar with macOS and a smattering of CLI magical invocations. Package managers exist for a reason. Flatpack, snap etc all exist. You can't just hand wave real complexity away by yelling "usability!" without having fiat power over an incredibly diverse ecosystem. The lowest common denominator for installing software on Linux distributions is well below what an incurious user will put up with. If you don't want to understand that kind of low level tinkering, you have to wait for whatever ecosystem you bought into to catch up. That might mean moving back to Apple's curated experience. That's fine; so long as Linux itself isn't a curated walled garden, it'll never be as seamless in every instance, and that's not for everyone.
II2II 4y ago
On the user error bit, all I can say is that it is a trade-off. If you wait until your distribution does the hard work for you, by releasing the updated package, your experience will be far less painful than it is under competing operating systems. Of course, that does mean waiting. If you think that those competing operating systems don't have usability problems, well, all I can say is that is far from the truth. I went through the process of setting up Windows the other day and found the software installation mind-bogglingly frustrating. In every case, I was scavenging websites for software. Some of those websites felt dubious. In the case of a couple of drivers, I was dealing with the equivalent of that .tar.bz2 file. I'm not going to claim that the Linux world is perfect. I am going to claim that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence.
- rvz 4y ago
  Thank you for explaining why the Linux Desktop is a giant usability failure and how 'defining' Linux support is an impossibility. Rather than be able to support ONE operating system 100% of the time like what you get with Windows and macOS, Desktop Linux support is an unnecessary M * N support matrix of distros, packages and desktop environments and you always end up having to select a chosen few; meaning you always anger a bunch of Linux users using exotic distros (even though they run Desktop 'Linux'). Linux packaging is beyond a dreadful disaster of in-fighting and a malestrom of frustration and confusion for the user who dares to bother. Majority of the software on Linux is still shockingly distributed via ridiculous .tar.bz2 files or requires opening a terminal to ./ execute it, if not then it is either the alternatives of AppImage, Snap, FlatPak, etc, etc which don't work on all systems out of the box. They are still solutions looking for a problem. With Windows, and macOS packaging for them is already built into the OS and works consistently and natively as expected. A problem long solved by them but on Desktop Linux it is still an issue for a quarter of a century.
  - II2II 4y ago
    You're welcome to look at the Linux situation that way if you choose to, but claiming that Windows and macOS packaging works consistently and natively is a huge stretch of the imagination. I had to install a Windows system the other day, and it was frustrating. For the most part, software had to be scavenged from various websites. Some of those sites felt less than reputable while others were avoided because they were less than reputable. Once I managed to download the installer from the developer, I found that they were rarely consistent. While most appeared to be some sort of wrapper for MSI, many were not. The user interfaces and procedures varied wildly, even with software from Microsoft themselves. On top of that, I had two drivers that were shipped as a zipped collection of files. In the case of my printer drivers, I had to run an executable file buried in one of the subfolders. In the case of the USB-RS232 bridge drivers, I had to call up the properties dialog in the device manager to update the drivers. I am not going to deny the kernel truth in your claims about Linux. Installing software can be a mess. On the other hand, I rarely have to face that truth. Almost everything is handled by the package manager. In the case of hardware, the drivers are usually built into the kernel. The end result is that software tends to be faster and easier to install and update on Linux. At least from my experience.
rvz 4y ago
> Will desktop Linux ever solve these basic usability problems? Never. Desktop Linux will never solve these simple usability issues since the developers are too busy fighting for who is the smartest one of them all. As with that, little to no-one cared about Thunderbird. I should not expect the world to care either, especially on Desktop Linux, which both are complete failures after years and years of issues.
SkyMarshal 4y ago
Linux really just needs to adopt AppImage as the default manual install package. A single download that runs the actual application when you click it, no installation necessary. It may have a larger file size due to bundling dependencies that are already on the machine, but people who are bandwidth or diskpace limited can use their repo or tarballs instead. Just make the default option the simplest for non-techies to deal with.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  > Linux really just needs to adopt AppImage Do you understand that there isn't some unitary organization called "Linux" putting out all these different OSes like Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.?
  - SkyMarshal 4y ago
    Of course, Linux community consensus was obviously implied there, didn’t think I needed to spell it out for the HN crowd.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      Okay. Why should the Linux community care about this? It is not a business trying to sell something to as many people as possible. It’s a diverse set of people and companies each working on whatever is important to them. If consumers want consumer-level support, they can buy a Mac. What’s the problem?
      - SkyMarshal 4y ago
        Because the Linux community also cares about expanding freedom- and privacy-respecting general purpose computing to as broad a user base as possible. Simplifying the user experience is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, requirement for that.
        School-Cotton 4y ago
3np 4y ago
I think the prudent thing to do would be to replace the "Download Thunderbird" button with a "Get Thunderbird" one which has instructions for how to get it via distro repos at least for Ubuntu/Fedora (and maybe flatpak/snap if they endorse them?), alongside a "Download for manual installation" which replicates the current behavior.
moxvallix 4y ago
It has. AppImages work exactly as a user would expect them to. Even if the AppImage is not marked as executable, one of the problems I can imagine a new user encountering, Dolphin (KDE file manager) asks if I want to trust and run the file anyways. It is on Thunderbird for just distributing a weird tar file. Preferably, their download button would take you to an installation instructions page.
- geokon 4y ago
  And idea how to get Dolphin to "register" the AppImage as an application? (so it shows up in menus). Manually making AppImage .desktop files is always a bit clunk and you don't get the proper icons. I know there is some thrid party tool that does it more properly, but I wonder if there is an integrated way I swear this used to work automatically and at some point it was removed.. or maybe I'm misremembering
  - moxvallix 4y ago
    Try this: https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher
    - geokon 4y ago
      Oh cool, it's got a PPA and it nicely moves all the .appimage files to one application directory. Seems to work very well. Thank you! The icons don't show up immediately in the KDE menus, but maybe that'll get reindexed after a reboot or something
      - geokon 4y ago
        Icons appeared on reboot :)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lazyier 4y ago
> Will desktop Linux ever solve these basic usability problems? If the Windows downloaded contained nothing but a zip file with a binary then you'd have the same issue on Windows. > Will desktop Linux ever solve these basic usability problems? No, because it would require everybody to agree to use Flatpak to distribute working desktop applications.
- hilbert42 4y ago
  ...And that's why Linux still languishes on the desktop, QED. Google proved the point with Android and thus fixed Linux with APK files and then it was a runaway success. The need to fix this problem with Linux is so obvious and that it hasn't you'd have to reckon Microsoft must have found a way to divide and rule over any agreement process. More to the point it shows the inherent weakness in open software - that is better open products have difficulty in competing against commercial ones because of stupid squabbles amongst the Open community - disagreements over minor technicalities and useability issues† means the greater objective has been lost. This is all very annoying for average users, especially so when we've huge monopolies such as Microsoft and Google running the show. With little effective choice users capitulate to the inevitable. Anyone who'd argue with this assessment, don't bother arguing with me, read the stats instead. Comparing the numbers of Thunderbird versus Gmail users would be a good place to start. † For instance, when considering to use Linux the average user is horrified at having to choose from hundreds of different distros so it's no wonder he/she gives up. The sheer number of distros is madness, it's such a fractured effort. I can't think of another comparable instance in the tech world where things have gotten so out of control.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    > More to the point it shows the inherent weakness in open software - that is better open products have difficulty in competing against commercial ones because of stupid squabbles amongst the Open community - disagreements over minor technicalities and useability issues† means the greater objective has been lost. What "greater objective" do you refer to? My objective is to have an OS that I have control over and can reasonably understand. For me that tends to be debian. So I guess for me the greater objective is satisfied.
pmontra 4y ago
You are on Ubuntu so shouldn't you have to install software from the Software app (or whatever it is called now), which is a GUI over apt and snap? I get my Thunderbird updates through the system update tool. Same for Firefox, BTW.
ghostly_s 4y ago
This is mostly a solved problem on distros that support the OCS URL standard (all the major ones, I believe): https://www.opencode.net/dfn2/ocs-url/-/blob/master/docs/OCS-URL-specification.md https://www.opencode.net/dfn2/ocs-url/-/blob/master/docs/OCS...
diffeomorphism 4y ago
> I'm on an Ubuntu 22.04 Desktop computer. I click on the big green Free Download button. WHY? Why would you ever do that? It is not "you are doing it wrong" it is "you are wrong for doing it at all". Even Windows got the memo and got win-get now....
- alexb_ 4y ago
  Come the fuck on, really? Are you really asking someone why they would click the button that says download and is prominently displayed and then acting like they are stupid for expecting it to download? 99.9% of Windows users do not use win-get, and you know this. Stop pretending that bad UX is just the user being stupid.
cycomanic 4y ago
So how did that work for you on your mobile? I find it funny that people are perfectly fine using the appstore and not being able to just download apps from a website (easily) on mobile (amny even say it is a feature), but when it is not possible on desktop than it is somehow a massive usability issue that users never be able to adjust to (apart from the fact that MS and Apple also try to push you to their appstores).
jacooper 4y ago
Yes, flatpak exists, and its a better system than all the other desktop OSs.
lproven 4y ago
Bypassing all the arguments about hows and whys... There is an AppImage. It just works. https://github.com/srevinsaju/thunderbird-appImage/ https://github.com/srevinsaju/thunderbird-appImage/ Try it. And yes, IMHO, the Thunderbird organisation should distribute it.
weberer 4y ago
Generally you install software from the app store, which is called "Discover" in Ubuntu. However, the newest version of Thunderbird hasn't been shipped out there yet, so you might have to wait a day or two. It is available as a candidate release though, so if you want to try out Thunderbird 102 right now, you can open a terminal and type: sudo snap install thunderbird --candidate And yeah, I think it is a mistake for the Thunderbird website to not guide people to the software center.
djent 4y ago
If you extracted the entire thunderbird folder from the archive instead of attempting to execute a single binary in a compressed archive, you could have avoided this entire flame war. And you would have had a functional email client
maccolgan 4y ago
I really hope this doesn't become the standard for new Linux desktop users.

eointierney 4y ago

Yes, Linux has (partially) done this already, albeit with some user interface incongruities, check out nixos and guix Hey NixOS and Guix communities! Your theory is awesome, your practice is great, we just need to work on making this trivial for children. Always think of the children

rtpg 4y ago

Don’t blame Linux as a whole for Thunderbird not packaging a .deb file. (EDIT: or an AppImage file. I get everyone is not on Ubuntu/Debian)

NavinF 4y ago
I’ll blame Linux as a whole for every app needing several deb files (one per distro Ubuntu/Debian/etc and one per LTS), several rpm files (one per distro RH/Fedora/etc and one per LTS), and several <100+ chars omitted for brevity). On other platforms (Windows, macOS, Android, iOS) it’s fairly common to distribute GUI apps as a single binary so you don’t need an army of package maintainers. Perks of having many years of ABI stability.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  I’d be perfectly fine with everyone switching over to .deb files. Sadly it seems AppImage is more popular these days.
  - NavinF 4y ago
    Sure, I’d be fine with any standard. It’s just insane how just about every distro has its own sporadically updated repo instead of sharing common packages. Projects that need to be patched and rebuilt should be the exception, not the rule. Scroll down and you’ll see people arguing about supported features because they’re running an ancient version of Thunderbird supplied by their distro.
  - oldjavacoder 4y ago
    From what I've seen, .deb is still king over rpm, appimage, flatpak and snap.
- OJFord 4y ago
  'Linux as a whole' has nothing to do with .deb files.
  - NavinF 4y ago
    That’s kinda my point.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      Sorry yes I overreacted to the first sentence without understanding the tone. I think it's unfortunate anyone offers .deb (or similar) downloads really - the many Linux distros don't have a single packaging mechanism, so why pretend they do, or that your app's not going to work on the ones you don't provide? Just say it's built for Linux, perhaps here's a binary, here's the source if available, this is the preferred name, go and check your package manager.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > On other platforms (Windows, macOS, Android, iOS) it’s fairly common to distribute GUI apps as a single binary so you don’t need an army of package maintainers. You can do this on Linux, too, be it by compiling a static binary or bundling everything as an AppImage or what have you.
  - hilbert42 4y ago
    So why isn't it do more widely when it would convenience many users? Frankly, I find it annoying that it isn't done as a matter of course.
    - hilbert42 4y ago
      Typo sorry, it's 'done' not 'do'.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      I agree. Thankfully, enough others agree that there are AppImages and other single-file executables for all sorts of Linux software.
- rtpg 4y ago
  I believe most projects that serve debs from their own download page do not try to package for each distro separately, and instead opt to package up requirements as needed. I can't comment deeply on deb vs rpm, it is kinda disappointing that we have this split, and I don't know if there's a great way to merge it back. Mac does have a good distribution story. This also exists on Linux in the form of app images. The one missing piece is that Mac has the Applications convention. AppImageLauncher[0] solves this, but really it would be good for Gnome/KDE to just integrate this concept. That gives the (important!) "have the application show up in the application launcher" option. I do not believe one could qualify Windows programs as being distributed as a single binary. A single installer, perhaps! But many Windows programs dump files all over your file tree to do things, and then goes to touch stuff in your registry. There's a reason we have "portable executables" for windows as its own download option! [0]: https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Who are you blaming, exactly? There’s no project or organization called “Linux as a whole”.
  - jjj123 4y ago
    A problem can’t be blamed on a single entity is still a problem, right? I think OP was just explaining the issue.
  - notriddle 4y ago
    That's exactly what the problem is. The diffusion of responsibility makes it a decades-long problem and nobody has the responsibility or the power to fix it.
    - School-Cotton 4y ago
      OK, so, why bother complaining about it? Use Linux if it does what you want, otherwise use macOS or Windows.
      - notriddle 4y ago
        Because I don’t think it’s unreasonable to want: * A desktop package that isn’t a vehicle for ads (like Windows and ChromeOS). * A desktop package that doesn’t require you to write your own one-off scripts to work around stupid deficiencies (like GNU/Linux). * A desktop package that doesn’t constantly throw away all its “legacy” and break a bunch of stuff (like Mac).
        School-Cotton 4y ago
        It’s indeed not unreasonable to want that, but there does not exist any incentive structure that would cause it to exist. It’s not the fault of some person or group of people doing something wrong; it’s simply a logical consequence of what Linux is.
WatchDog 4y ago
You can blame Linux distros as a whole, for being obsessed with dynamic linking shared libraries. The Linux kernel itself has a well publicized policy of not breaking user space and binary compatibility, but pretty much all distros regularly break binary compatibility, they require software to dynamically link to os provided shared libraries, and they don't allow statically linked programs to be distributed using their package managers. Packaging and distributing software for windows or macOS is really easy. Doing the same for Linux, particularly desktop applications, is a huge pain. It's a point that Linus Torvalds has often bemoaned[0][1]. [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whs8QZf3YnifdLv57+FhBi5_WeNTG1B-suOES=RcUSmQg@mail.gmail.com/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=whs8QZf3YnifdLv57+FhBi5_W... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8379139 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8379139
- usrn 4y ago
  You can statically link your apps just fine as long as you follow the license for the libraries you're linking (in the case of libc, the LGPL.) Before you get upset about this Windows does the same thing with their C runtime (although the license terms are different.) Ever seen the installer for it when you install another app? That's exactly what's going on. Go nearly always does this for example (although in some version they switched to dynamically linking to glibc for the stub resolver) and you can take statically linked go binaries and copy them to totally different OSes as long as the architecture is compatible. I remember taking a copy of syncthing and copying it between my Android and a Raspberry pi at one point (or maybe it was a kindle and a raspberry pi) which run totally different OSes and it worked just fine (ignoring the Android stupidity of course.)
- rtpg 4y ago
  I mean you can put up a `.deb` with a statically linked binary on your download page right? You can also use stuff like App Image right? It's not like nobody has ever put a go binary into a .deb before. I don't think comparing "state of packages got off of apt" to "state of downloaded installers for Mac/Windows" is an apples to apples comparison.
  - WatchDog 4y ago

cowtools 4y ago

I think you are doing this wrong. If I want to install some software on linux, I install it from my distro's package repository or I compile it myself. There's no reason to expect different linux distros to have binary compatibility. This isn't closed-source software on a backwards-compatable ABI like on windows, there's no reason to install binaries from an unsigned source. If the developers of thunderbird want, they can supply a binary compiled against your specific distro/version, or a statically-linked binary, or a container like an AppImage

Yhippa 4y ago
It’s astounding that someone new to Linux has to wrap their head around all of that. It actually kind of makes it like a cool, secret club.
- oldjavacoder 4y ago
  What's truly astounding is that Windows and Mac have developed their own Linux like distribution managers over the years indicating it's probably far better than the proprietary crap they created in the first place.
- diffeomorphism 4y ago
  It is astounding that you think phones need you to join a "cool, secret club". Open app store, click install is not new, not secret and much easier than download stuff from websites to sideload.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Avamander 4y ago
  It's not a problem for new Linux users, it's a problem for old Windows new Linux users who are accustomed to the idiosyncrasies of Windows.

riverdroid 4y ago

The easiest and best way for you (you'll get updates through signed packages, etc) is probably to install via the Ubuntu Software Center. Though it can be difficult to download and run random software from the internet, I have to say, most Linux distributions have got the software distribution challenge through their package managers right compared to OSX and Windows. First thing I do on an OSX machine is install homebrew which helps a little.

pleb_nz 4y ago
I don't use unbuntu. But doesn't it's software centre always try to push you to snaps? Or can this be disabled. Last thing I would want is snap variants.
- quotemstr 4y ago
  Moving to Snaps gets us to a world of sandboxed applications, defined permissions, and OS version independence. That's the world that exists on mobile, and it's pretty great. Shouldn't desktop learn from mobile's successful experiment in sandboxing?
  - nijave 4y ago
    Flatpak seems a little less finicky but slightly less user friendly (you manage your own repos/sources)
  - jeroenhd 4y ago
    They should, that's why Flatpak is excellent for wide-spread, cross-distro software support. Snap is a slightly worse, proprietary sandboxing mechanism pushed by Canonical, the people making money off it. It has some fundamental problems (boot being slowed down by all the snaps being mounted, for example, Firefox acting weird and sometimes not even launching until I reboot since 22.04) and some ideological problems (the fact you can't host your own snap store without paying Canonical, the fact Snap blatantly refuses to follow standards like XDG or even just folder naming in the home directories, forcing a lowercase "snap" folder on everyone). Some people are against the appification that's taking a toll on user freedom. Some people are in favour of the excellent permission monitoring and dependency conflict resolution it allows. Both sides seem to conclude that snap isn't the right answer.

ryukafalz 4y ago

This is at least partly on Thunderbird’s end. The more user friendly thing to do these days would be to distribute packages for each distro, which would behave a lot more like you’re expecting. But “desktop Linux” is not an entity that can solve anything. It’s a loose collection of people and organizations all doing their own thing. If Thunderbird gives you an installer on Windows and an archive full of files rather than an installer on Linux, well…

Gigachad 4y ago
This problem is largely solved via flatpak. The link can download a small config file that tells your software installer gui where to grab the package. It then installs and updates like you’d expect any app. Software does need to stop linking to these tar files.
- sph 4y ago
  Especially since there already is an unofficial Thunderbird flatpak that works pretty well.
- badsectoracula 4y ago
  Personally i'd rather download a tarball with the binaries, put the program in a directory of my choice and if needed install the necessary libraries from my distro's package manager. So i wouldn't like it if programs stopped distributing those.
bravetraveler 4y ago
They surely have their own technical problems, but AppImages that maintain themselves are particularly friendly as well. It's about as similar to the 'download untrusted software, double click to run it, and hope/pray/assume it handles updates itself' workflow found elsewhere as you can get. I have several non-technical family members using Linux. They don't struggle getting software at all, regardless of it not being just-like-others. There's software portals just like the stores on other platforms and they generally bridge the gap between packages/containers well. Nobody installs from archives like Slackware anymore, or they shouldn't.

ajross 4y ago

"Download this blob and run it to install software systemwide" isn't something that works well on any platform anymore, FWIW, and you shouldn't do it even (especially) if it's cleanly package in a self-executing installer. Ubuntu provides thunderbird both as a stable release and as a containerized snap with rolling release semantics. Snap downloads are authenticated and secure. Get it from here if you want the latest and greatest, though they haven't blessed 102 as stable yet (it's still "latest/candidate" as of right now): https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird https://snapcraft.io/thunderbird In this case, though, I think you're complaining overmuch. What you got was a tarball intended for install from the command line, which is a distribution format well-understood by Linux hackers since before most of the commenters here were born. It's certainly not a "basic usability problem" to provide software in a consistent format for 30 years!

Aeolun 4y ago

I mean, if you are on windows and you start downloading .dmg files that’s user error. If you are on Debian’ish and you download anything other than .deb files I don’t know what you expect.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

> you're doing it wrong! You... kind of are though, to the extent that what you tried wouldn't work on Windows either (equivalent to trying to run a program in a zip without extracting it). Extract the directory and run the thing called thunderbird in it.

inferiorhuman 4y ago
Except most folks distribute self-extracting archives or an MSI for Windows.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  And most people distribute .deb files for Linux.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    My experience is that tarballs and RPMs are most common. Regardless there's a lot more diversity in how things are packaged on Linux than on Windows or OSX. Even if I get a tarball on OSX I can double click on it and then drag the application into the "Applications" directory or run the installer. I'm not sure why this is so challenging on Linux.
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      Both macOS and windows made the choice to make programs mostly self contained things that can be just dragged in. Linux distros have a complex network of dependancies, config files, and general crap that requires sophisticated tooling to manage which is different on different distros. All to save a few kb of storage space.
      - bogwog 4y ago
        When you download a tarball from the internet containing an application, usually (unless they messed up/don't know what they're doing) that means most if not all dependencies are fully contained in that archive, except for things you can't really do that for, like libc. The point of a tarball is to avoid the system package manager, which makes it easier to reach more distros at the cost of an increased risk it simply won't work on some systems (due to missing system libraries or different versions). The real reason macOS and Windows are easier to distribute software on is because there's only one Windows and only one macOS. "Linux" is not an operating system, Ubuntu, Arch, Fedora, RHEL, etc. are all different operating systems that just so happen to share a kernel and a similar ecosystem of open source software. So compatibility between them is more of a coincidence than anything else. Luckily nowadays we have Flatpaks and AppImages, which both solve the problem of simplifying app distribution and installation universally for all distros. Although devs will probably get a lot of hate if they only distribute their app as a Flatpak or AppImage and don't also offer tarballs/debs/rpms...so app distribution is likely to remain complicated for a while.

soulofmischief 4y ago

The problem exists between chair and keyboard. You don't understand how archives work and are trying to run a program with many files from an archive before first extracting it to a folder in your filesystem. You could have taken this time spent blaming Linux and used it to google around a little bit and learn something new. I recommend learning a bit about how your filesystem works and why it can't find linked files from within an archive. This is essential computing knowledge. The fact that you are not aware that Ubuntu comes with a software package manager means you are still inexperienced and should not blame the system until you have spent more time with it. You similarly shouldn't blame a car for bad UX because you have to take a class and multiple exams before understanding how to use it?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
breadloaf 4y ago
User has no business in learning anything about file systems. This is basic UX error and one of many cuts, which are keeping Desktop Linux on its 1% market share.
VWWHFSfQ 4y ago
So do I wget the big green Free Download link instead of click on it? Do I then cd to my Downloads folder and tar xf on the file? And then I cd into the extracted directory and ./thunderbird? ... We see the usability problems here.
awill 4y ago
I sort of read the OPs message ironically. The OPs point is that this stuff is broken compared to how a Windows or Mac user would do things. Windows/Mac users just click download, and double click. Linux could get to the same spot (more or less) by using Flatpak. I think that has to be the answer here. It's absurd to expect a developer to build their app for a dozen different distros.
quotemstr 4y ago
> I recommend learning a bit about how your filesystem works and why it can't find linked files from within an archive. This is essential computing knowledge Billions of people use computers (most of which are, for historical reasons, called "phones") that require none of this "essential" knowledge, and they do just fine. Don't you think humanity is better off for freeing all these people from having to spend their brief time on Earth from having to learn about archives and filesystems? Sometimes difficulty isn't a mark of virtue but instead just pointless pain.

usrn 4y ago

TBH that's a feature not a bug. If you don't know what to do here you probably don't know enough to evaluate the safety of the software you just downloaded. Your distro maintainers will pick it up soon and it will show up on your machine the next time you run apt upgrade. Note that no one is stopping you from running thunderbird. It sounds like you downloaded a dynamically linked binary distribution and there's probably just an elf file you need to run. Otherwise if the binary is incompatible you can build it from the source (I've never tried thunderbird, Firefox is a bit much but it's doable and there are of course ways to automate it such as running a Gentoo prefix or using the spec files from your distribution itself.) EDIT: Linux is fine for everyone. Installing bleeding edge software from web sites is not for everyone.

jjj123 4y ago
Sounds like you and the OP agree, that Linux isn’t for everyone?
moralestapia 4y ago
Yeah sure, just don't complain when Linux falls below 1% in market share.
- School-Cotton 4y ago
  Who is complaining? I don't often see Linux users complaining that its market share is low, outside of free software ideologues. This seems to be 99% a strawman. I don't care if Linux has 0.00000001% market share as long as it still does what I want.
alexb_ 4y ago
> Note that no one is stopping you from running thunderbird. It sounds like you downloaded a dynamically linked binary distribution and there's probably just an elf file you need to run. Otherwise if the binary is incompatible you can build it from the source (I've never tried thunderbird, Firefox is a bit much but it's doable and there are of course ways to automate it such as running a Gentoo prefix or using the spec files from your distribution itself.) You should put yourself in the mind of someone who doesn't work with computers for a living. Then, read that to yourself again and see how much of it is complete nonsense. You should not have to know what any of those words mean to use an operating system, and if you do that is either the fault of the OS or the software, not the fault of the user.

OJFord 4y ago

> Or will this always just be user error! you're doing it wrong! I suppose this is what my reply will boil down to, but also isn't that fine? You could do something unusual on macOS or Windows and there too throw your hands up in mock shock that it was to be labelled 'user error'. Anyway, when I want to install software on Linux I type `yay -Ss software` (on my work/personal machines) or `apt search software` (on a Debian derivative image) etc., and then install what I've found similarly. Thunderbird could do better here - greenfield software today might offer a Snap or Flatpak package there for example - but I don't think download via vendor website is the norm on any distribution; it tends to work on macOS & Windows, but is decreasingly primary even there; it probably could launch Ubuntu Software Center (or whatever it is) as it does App Store.app on macOS - but who wants to look up what to do and maintain everything like that for N top Linux distros? If it were me I think I'd just have a dummy button, conveying somehow that it 'works on Linux, you should refer to your package manager'.

vonwoodson 4y ago

You might be right. Here’s some help on how to install Thunderbird on GNU/Linux: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/installing-thunderbird-linux https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/installing-thunderbird-...

dmustillo 4y ago

It blows my mind how many comments here think you are wrong. You are absolutely correct. A new user does not care how great x,y,z feature is if they can't do basic things that are ubiquitous in other operating systems. New users might hear Unix is better, but if it doesn't feel that way, they're going to go back to what they know works when the next deliverable/project/essay/game comes out.

usrn 4y ago
If Linux distros implemented every feature "new users" wanted then you would end up with something nearly identical to ChromiumOS (and those same users would probably just run ChromeOS.) If you want that then go run that. EDIT: Everyone here knows how to type "sudo apt install thunderbird." People are failing to install bleeding edge software. This shouldn't be surprising or upsetting.
- suby 4y ago
  This isn't just a feature, this is installing apps. Many users are failing to install apps. Users on this forum, even, which is telling because this forum is a sort of filter to select those who are more tech savy than the average person. There is a usability issue here that absolutely should be talked about and addressed, which involves a solution that isn't "switch to chrome OS".
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    I would hazard a guess that many users on this forum are really only familiar with macOS and a smattering of CLI magical invocations. Package managers exist for a reason. Flatpack, snap etc all exist. You can't just hand wave real complexity away by yelling "usability!" without having fiat power over an incredibly diverse ecosystem. The lowest common denominator for installing software on Linux distributions is well below what an incurious user will put up with. If you don't want to understand that kind of low level tinkering, you have to wait for whatever ecosystem you bought into to catch up. That might mean moving back to Apple's curated experience. That's fine; so long as Linux itself isn't a curated walled garden, it'll never be as seamless in every instance, and that's not for everyone.

II2II 4y ago

On the user error bit, all I can say is that it is a trade-off. If you wait until your distribution does the hard work for you, by releasing the updated package, your experience will be far less painful than it is under competing operating systems. Of course, that does mean waiting. If you think that those competing operating systems don't have usability problems, well, all I can say is that is far from the truth. I went through the process of setting up Windows the other day and found the software installation mind-bogglingly frustrating. In every case, I was scavenging websites for software. Some of those websites felt dubious. In the case of a couple of drivers, I was dealing with the equivalent of that .tar.bz2 file. I'm not going to claim that the Linux world is perfect. I am going to claim that the grass isn't greener on the other side of the fence.

rvz 4y ago
Thank you for explaining why the Linux Desktop is a giant usability failure and how 'defining' Linux support is an impossibility. Rather than be able to support ONE operating system 100% of the time like what you get with Windows and macOS, Desktop Linux support is an unnecessary M * N support matrix of distros, packages and desktop environments and you always end up having to select a chosen few; meaning you always anger a bunch of Linux users using exotic distros (even though they run Desktop 'Linux'). Linux packaging is beyond a dreadful disaster of in-fighting and a malestrom of frustration and confusion for the user who dares to bother. Majority of the software on Linux is still shockingly distributed via ridiculous .tar.bz2 files or requires opening a terminal to ./ execute it, if not then it is either the alternatives of AppImage, Snap, FlatPak, etc, etc which don't work on all systems out of the box. They are still solutions looking for a problem. With Windows, and macOS packaging for them is already built into the OS and works consistently and natively as expected. A problem long solved by them but on Desktop Linux it is still an issue for a quarter of a century.
- II2II 4y ago
  You're welcome to look at the Linux situation that way if you choose to, but claiming that Windows and macOS packaging works consistently and natively is a huge stretch of the imagination. I had to install a Windows system the other day, and it was frustrating. For the most part, software had to be scavenged from various websites. Some of those sites felt less than reputable while others were avoided because they were less than reputable. Once I managed to download the installer from the developer, I found that they were rarely consistent. While most appeared to be some sort of wrapper for MSI, many were not. The user interfaces and procedures varied wildly, even with software from Microsoft themselves. On top of that, I had two drivers that were shipped as a zipped collection of files. In the case of my printer drivers, I had to run an executable file buried in one of the subfolders. In the case of the USB-RS232 bridge drivers, I had to call up the properties dialog in the device manager to update the drivers. I am not going to deny the kernel truth in your claims about Linux. Installing software can be a mess. On the other hand, I rarely have to face that truth. Almost everything is handled by the package manager. In the case of hardware, the drivers are usually built into the kernel. The end result is that software tends to be faster and easier to install and update on Linux. At least from my experience.

rvz 4y ago

> Will desktop Linux ever solve these basic usability problems? Never. Desktop Linux will never solve these simple usability issues since the developers are too busy fighting for who is the smartest one of them all. As with that, little to no-one cared about Thunderbird. I should not expect the world to care either, especially on Desktop Linux, which both are complete failures after years and years of issues.

SkyMarshal 4y ago

Linux really just needs to adopt AppImage as the default manual install package. A single download that runs the actual application when you click it, no installation necessary. It may have a larger file size due to bundling dependencies that are already on the machine, but people who are bandwidth or diskpace limited can use their repo or tarballs instead. Just make the default option the simplest for non-techies to deal with.

School-Cotton 4y ago
> Linux really just needs to adopt AppImage Do you understand that there isn't some unitary organization called "Linux" putting out all these different OSes like Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.?
- SkyMarshal 4y ago
  Of course, Linux community consensus was obviously implied there, didn’t think I needed to spell it out for the HN crowd.
  - School-Cotton 4y ago
    Okay. Why should the Linux community care about this? It is not a business trying to sell something to as many people as possible. It’s a diverse set of people and companies each working on whatever is important to them. If consumers want consumer-level support, they can buy a Mac. What’s the problem?
    - SkyMarshal 4y ago
      Because the Linux community also cares about expanding freedom- and privacy-respecting general purpose computing to as broad a user base as possible. Simplifying the user experience is a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, requirement for that.
      - School-Cotton 4y ago

3np 4y ago

I think the prudent thing to do would be to replace the "Download Thunderbird" button with a "Get Thunderbird" one which has instructions for how to get it via distro repos at least for Ubuntu/Fedora (and maybe flatpak/snap if they endorse them?), alongside a "Download for manual installation" which replicates the current behavior.

moxvallix 4y ago

It has. AppImages work exactly as a user would expect them to. Even if the AppImage is not marked as executable, one of the problems I can imagine a new user encountering, Dolphin (KDE file manager) asks if I want to trust and run the file anyways. It is on Thunderbird for just distributing a weird tar file. Preferably, their download button would take you to an installation instructions page.

geokon 4y ago
And idea how to get Dolphin to "register" the AppImage as an application? (so it shows up in menus). Manually making AppImage .desktop files is always a bit clunk and you don't get the proper icons. I know there is some thrid party tool that does it more properly, but I wonder if there is an integrated way I swear this used to work automatically and at some point it was removed.. or maybe I'm misremembering
- moxvallix 4y ago
  Try this: https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher https://github.com/TheAssassin/AppImageLauncher
  - geokon 4y ago
    Oh cool, it's got a PPA and it nicely moves all the .appimage files to one application directory. Seems to work very well. Thank you! The icons don't show up immediately in the KDE menus, but maybe that'll get reindexed after a reboot or something
    - geokon 4y ago
      Icons appeared on reboot :)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lazyier 4y ago

> Will desktop Linux ever solve these basic usability problems? If the Windows downloaded contained nothing but a zip file with a binary then you'd have the same issue on Windows. > Will desktop Linux ever solve these basic usability problems? No, because it would require everybody to agree to use Flatpak to distribute working desktop applications.

hilbert42 4y ago
...And that's why Linux still languishes on the desktop, QED. Google proved the point with Android and thus fixed Linux with APK files and then it was a runaway success. The need to fix this problem with Linux is so obvious and that it hasn't you'd have to reckon Microsoft must have found a way to divide and rule over any agreement process. More to the point it shows the inherent weakness in open software - that is better open products have difficulty in competing against commercial ones because of stupid squabbles amongst the Open community - disagreements over minor technicalities and useability issues† means the greater objective has been lost. This is all very annoying for average users, especially so when we've huge monopolies such as Microsoft and Google running the show. With little effective choice users capitulate to the inevitable. Anyone who'd argue with this assessment, don't bother arguing with me, read the stats instead. Comparing the numbers of Thunderbird versus Gmail users would be a good place to start. † For instance, when considering to use Linux the average user is horrified at having to choose from hundreds of different distros so it's no wonder he/she gives up. The sheer number of distros is madness, it's such a fractured effort. I can't think of another comparable instance in the tech world where things have gotten so out of control.
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  > More to the point it shows the inherent weakness in open software - that is better open products have difficulty in competing against commercial ones because of stupid squabbles amongst the Open community - disagreements over minor technicalities and useability issues† means the greater objective has been lost. What "greater objective" do you refer to? My objective is to have an OS that I have control over and can reasonably understand. For me that tends to be debian. So I guess for me the greater objective is satisfied.

pmontra 4y ago

You are on Ubuntu so shouldn't you have to install software from the Software app (or whatever it is called now), which is a GUI over apt and snap? I get my Thunderbird updates through the system update tool. Same for Firefox, BTW.

ghostly_s 4y ago

This is mostly a solved problem on distros that support the OCS URL standard (all the major ones, I believe): https://www.opencode.net/dfn2/ocs-url/-/blob/master/docs/OCS-URL-specification.md https://www.opencode.net/dfn2/ocs-url/-/blob/master/docs/OCS...

diffeomorphism 4y ago

> I'm on an Ubuntu 22.04 Desktop computer. I click on the big green Free Download button. WHY? Why would you ever do that? It is not "you are doing it wrong" it is "you are wrong for doing it at all". Even Windows got the memo and got win-get now....

alexb_ 4y ago
Come the fuck on, really? Are you really asking someone why they would click the button that says download and is prominently displayed and then acting like they are stupid for expecting it to download? 99.9% of Windows users do not use win-get, and you know this. Stop pretending that bad UX is just the user being stupid.

cycomanic 4y ago

So how did that work for you on your mobile? I find it funny that people are perfectly fine using the appstore and not being able to just download apps from a website (easily) on mobile (amny even say it is a feature), but when it is not possible on desktop than it is somehow a massive usability issue that users never be able to adjust to (apart from the fact that MS and Apple also try to push you to their appstores).

jacooper 4y ago

Yes, flatpak exists, and its a better system than all the other desktop OSs.

lproven 4y ago

Bypassing all the arguments about hows and whys... There is an AppImage. It just works. https://github.com/srevinsaju/thunderbird-appImage/ https://github.com/srevinsaju/thunderbird-appImage/ Try it. And yes, IMHO, the Thunderbird organisation should distribute it.

weberer 4y ago

Generally you install software from the app store, which is called "Discover" in Ubuntu. However, the newest version of Thunderbird hasn't been shipped out there yet, so you might have to wait a day or two. It is available as a candidate release though, so if you want to try out Thunderbird 102 right now, you can open a terminal and type: sudo snap install thunderbird --candidate And yeah, I think it is a mistake for the Thunderbird website to not guide people to the software center.

djent 4y ago

If you extracted the entire thunderbird folder from the archive instead of attempting to execute a single binary in a compressed archive, you could have avoided this entire flame war. And you would have had a functional email client

maccolgan 4y ago

I really hope this doesn't become the standard for new Linux desktop users.