4 ms·

I disagree very hard on this. We mostly talk about the problematic cases, but most of the time when I need some software, I just install it through the package

I disagree very hard on this. We mostly talk about the problematic cases, but most of the time when I need some software, I just install it through the package manager and it just works. Compare this to Windows, where you often have to search the Internet, download some sketchy .exe or .msi and don't know if you'll get the software, a virus, or both. It got so bad that it was common to have "cleaners", extra tools that you downloaded (often from similarly sketchy sources) that tried to delete the sketchy parts of other programs, the remnants of incomplete deinstallations etc. I still remember when putty download was http-only, no HTTPS, and that was just a few years ago...

gkbrk 2y ago
> putty download was http-only, no HTTPS, and that was just a few years ago HTTP downloads are still fine in 2025 though, putty releases all come with signatures that can be used to check if anything was tampered with. This is how lots of Linux package managers can still use HTTP for downloading from mirrors without worrying about malicious package modifications.
- rcxdude 2y ago
  >HTTP downloads are still fine in 2025 though, putty releases all come with signatures that can be used to check if anything was tampered with. 1) People don't check, and 2) the root of trust for those signatures is almost always the same HTTP source as the download! In contrast, package managers do check, and they have a root of trust at least from install time.
poulpy123 2y ago
> I just install it through the package manager and it just works. It just works if the software you require is not only provided by your speciic distribution but also you require the specific version of the software that is provided by your specific distribution. Good luck if it not the case. For windows or mac, 1 or 2 files each cover all systems from the last 10 years or more. It's not by masochism that people regularly try to find solutions for linux by reinventing the wheel like appimages, snaps or flatpaks. > , download some sketchy .exe or .msi and don't know if you'll get the software, a virus, or both. You compare hunting for pirated software to installing open source software. You don't have more risk downloading an installer directly from the dev than from your distribution. And probably less once you go outside the main distrib. > It got so bad that it was common to have "cleaners" Yes windows has issues of letting remains of software that you desinstall(don't know for mac). But linux has issues too with remains, if only in your local directory. I'm not saying that the other systems are perfects but the developers don't need to produce binaries/installer for 200 distribution times 10 version for each distribution
- sofixa 2y ago
  > For windows or mac, 1 or 2 files each cover all systems from the last 10 years or more. Utter nonsense. What about code signing? A 10 year old installer won't be signed, and Windows/mac will scream at you about malware and you might have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it actually installed. > You compare hunting for pirated software to installing open source software Pirated? How do you download MS Office? Adobe Acrobat? VLC? For all of those, on Windows and on Mac, you have to search the net for an installer. And pray that your vision is good enough to detect phishing/scam websites. (And sometimes it isn't obvious, VLC is downloaded from videolan.org).
  - ziml77 2y ago
    It's really not that hard. On Windows you just tell SmartScreen to install anyway. On macOS once you've changed the system setting to allow unsigned executables, you right click and choose open and then tell it to run anyway. In both cases it won't bother you about it again for that executable.
- aprilnya 2y ago
  > It just works if the software you require is not only provided by your speciic distribution but also you require the specific version of the software that is provided by your specific distribution. Good luck if it not the case. It also just works if you install a Flatpak, which on distros like Fedora, you will be able to do by default through the software store app.

gkbrk 2y ago

> putty download was http-only, no HTTPS, and that was just a few years ago HTTP downloads are still fine in 2025 though, putty releases all come with signatures that can be used to check if anything was tampered with. This is how lots of Linux package managers can still use HTTP for downloading from mirrors without worrying about malicious package modifications.

rcxdude 2y ago
>HTTP downloads are still fine in 2025 though, putty releases all come with signatures that can be used to check if anything was tampered with. 1) People don't check, and 2) the root of trust for those signatures is almost always the same HTTP source as the download! In contrast, package managers do check, and they have a root of trust at least from install time.

poulpy123 2y ago

> I just install it through the package manager and it just works. It just works if the software you require is not only provided by your speciic distribution but also you require the specific version of the software that is provided by your specific distribution. Good luck if it not the case. For windows or mac, 1 or 2 files each cover all systems from the last 10 years or more. It's not by masochism that people regularly try to find solutions for linux by reinventing the wheel like appimages, snaps or flatpaks. > , download some sketchy .exe or .msi and don't know if you'll get the software, a virus, or both. You compare hunting for pirated software to installing open source software. You don't have more risk downloading an installer directly from the dev than from your distribution. And probably less once you go outside the main distrib. > It got so bad that it was common to have "cleaners" Yes windows has issues of letting remains of software that you desinstall(don't know for mac). But linux has issues too with remains, if only in your local directory. I'm not saying that the other systems are perfects but the developers don't need to produce binaries/installer for 200 distribution times 10 version for each distribution

sofixa 2y ago
> For windows or mac, 1 or 2 files each cover all systems from the last 10 years or more. Utter nonsense. What about code signing? A 10 year old installer won't be signed, and Windows/mac will scream at you about malware and you might have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get it actually installed. > You compare hunting for pirated software to installing open source software Pirated? How do you download MS Office? Adobe Acrobat? VLC? For all of those, on Windows and on Mac, you have to search the net for an installer. And pray that your vision is good enough to detect phishing/scam websites. (And sometimes it isn't obvious, VLC is downloaded from videolan.org).
- ziml77 2y ago
  It's really not that hard. On Windows you just tell SmartScreen to install anyway. On macOS once you've changed the system setting to allow unsigned executables, you right click and choose open and then tell it to run anyway. In both cases it won't bother you about it again for that executable.
aprilnya 2y ago
> It just works if the software you require is not only provided by your speciic distribution but also you require the specific version of the software that is provided by your specific distribution. Good luck if it not the case. It also just works if you install a Flatpak, which on distros like Fedora, you will be able to do by default through the software store app.