4 ms·

> What? If you haven't used the software before, what else other than defaults do you? On Windows it (by the time I left it, around 2013) it apparently meant b

> What? If you haven't used the software before, what else other than defaults do you? On Windows it (by the time I left it, around 2013) it apparently meant bundling various unrelated stuff (like installing Chrome, toolbars, McAfee antivirus trial). Half of installers had minigame "how to spot and stop crapware bundling". Or at least asking blatantly obvious questions and lying that I read and accepted piles of legalese written by their lawyers. Not sure has it got better. Linux style packaging eliminated this for user, at least in my case.

TeMPOraL 3y ago
> Linux style packaging eliminated this for user, at least in my case. That's in part because of the target audience on Linux was historically of the kind that didn't give a damn about this. Compare how analogous CLI package managers (chocolatey, winget) work on Windows: the first thing after identifying what to install is to query whether you accept relevant licensing terms.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Yeah I don't know about that. In F/OSS there is traditionally no EULA to accept. There is a license to use/modify/share the software, and it may be a page or two long, and most licenses are found in just a few categories, such as MIT, BSD, Apache, GPL. Literally none of these licenses, in their original forms, place any restrictions or conditions on how an end-user can use the software; they're aimed at developers and contributors' use and distribution of the source and binaries. Also, I don't know how non-Ubuntu package management organizes software, but in Ubuntu, you need to make a conscious decision to include the "nonfree" type of software. Now presumably for a Linux package manager, any installation action should hopefully import any license terms to a known, readable place for the user to peruse, before launch, if necessary. Perhaps many Linux users don't care, as you say, but I know a lot more who are exquisitely sensitive to licensing and EULAs and will scrutinize this stuff a lot more than a Windows user who just gobbles shareware from C|NET.

TeMPOraL 3y ago

> Linux style packaging eliminated this for user, at least in my case. That's in part because of the target audience on Linux was historically of the kind that didn't give a damn about this. Compare how analogous CLI package managers (chocolatey, winget) work on Windows: the first thing after identifying what to install is to query whether you accept relevant licensing terms.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Yeah I don't know about that. In F/OSS there is traditionally no EULA to accept. There is a license to use/modify/share the software, and it may be a page or two long, and most licenses are found in just a few categories, such as MIT, BSD, Apache, GPL. Literally none of these licenses, in their original forms, place any restrictions or conditions on how an end-user can use the software; they're aimed at developers and contributors' use and distribution of the source and binaries. Also, I don't know how non-Ubuntu package management organizes software, but in Ubuntu, you need to make a conscious decision to include the "nonfree" type of software. Now presumably for a Linux package manager, any installation action should hopefully import any license terms to a known, readable place for the user to peruse, before launch, if necessary. Perhaps many Linux users don't care, as you say, but I know a lot more who are exquisitely sensitive to licensing and EULAs and will scrutinize this stuff a lot more than a Windows user who just gobbles shareware from C|NET.