3 ms·

> "I tried installing this program by downloading and running it from AwesomeSoft.co.uk.com.to and it complains libraries are missing! This OS sucks, why isnt t

> "I tried installing this program by downloading and running it from AwesomeSoft.co.uk.com.to and it complains libraries are missing! This OS sucks, why isnt there just an installer? The Linux model would never scale to the vast quantity of existing Windows software. Instead of the Python foundation creating one universal Linux Python installer, you have each major Linux distribution needing a package manager for Python. Good luck if you use some obscure software. In a way, containers are exactly what Windows installers are - one self-contained universal way of running a piece of software, packaged by the creator.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago
I think it scales perfectly well, which is why it's kinda normal to have a couple thousand software packages from different vendors in a Linux system, while it is rare to have more than a couple hundred on a Windows. There is also this huge tendency for everything to become a "software suite" which tries to do everything and the kitchen sink in Windows and app store OSes while you can still find "do one thing" packages in distros.
safety1st 3y ago
There isn't one Linux model for installing software. There's your package manager, sure, and I'd agree not everything can (or needs to be) in there. We have flatpaks and snaps. We also have AppImages. The last one feels the most like the experience I had in my Windows days just downloading software from random websites, except it's still better than Windows, because it doesn't leave random garbage all over my system and require a potentially buggy uninstaller to remove. Ten years ago I wouldn't have advised most people to run Linux on their desktop. Windows has gotten worse since then and Linux has gotten better. If we assume your hardware is 100% supported (basically you're using a desktop PC or a laptop model with explicit support), and you don't need any Windows-only apps... I don't see why Linux wouldn't be the better choice.
- dist-epoch 3y ago
  > I don't see why Linux wouldn't be the better choice. It's pretty easy to get Linux in an unusable state (for a regular user). Windows it's much more resilient to various kinds of errors, including user errors.
  - earthling8118 3y ago
    That doesn't exactly line up with my experiences. I have generally had to actively work to avoid Windows from messing itself up. That or put in work to get basic functionality working. A regular user isn't going to be able to do that.

AshamedCaptain 3y ago

I think it scales perfectly well, which is why it's kinda normal to have a couple thousand software packages from different vendors in a Linux system, while it is rare to have more than a couple hundred on a Windows. There is also this huge tendency for everything to become a "software suite" which tries to do everything and the kitchen sink in Windows and app store OSes while you can still find "do one thing" packages in distros.

safety1st 3y ago

There isn't one Linux model for installing software. There's your package manager, sure, and I'd agree not everything can (or needs to be) in there. We have flatpaks and snaps. We also have AppImages. The last one feels the most like the experience I had in my Windows days just downloading software from random websites, except it's still better than Windows, because it doesn't leave random garbage all over my system and require a potentially buggy uninstaller to remove. Ten years ago I wouldn't have advised most people to run Linux on their desktop. Windows has gotten worse since then and Linux has gotten better. If we assume your hardware is 100% supported (basically you're using a desktop PC or a laptop model with explicit support), and you don't need any Windows-only apps... I don't see why Linux wouldn't be the better choice.

dist-epoch 3y ago
> I don't see why Linux wouldn't be the better choice. It's pretty easy to get Linux in an unusable state (for a regular user). Windows it's much more resilient to various kinds of errors, including user errors.
- earthling8118 3y ago
  That doesn't exactly line up with my experiences. I have generally had to actively work to avoid Windows from messing itself up. That or put in work to get basic functionality working. A regular user isn't going to be able to do that.