4 ms·

Speak for yourself. I have been using Linux for a decade and would want nothing more if standalone application setups like those in Windows became the norm of s

Speak for yourself. I have been using Linux for a decade and would want nothing more if standalone application setups like those in Windows became the norm of software distribution. Centralized package management is a curse. Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS.

pdonis 2y ago
> Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS. Distros are not quite "the OS". You don't need a distro to run Linux. The role distros play as far as Linux applications are concerned is more like an app store in the Windows (or Mac) world. Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way basically since their inception, and their desktop OS has been becoming more and more like that. So has Windows.
- dartharva 2y ago
  > Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way... So has Windows. Is that where we want desktop Linux to go?
  - pdonis 2y ago
    If you mean, do we want desktop Linux to have distros, that ship sailed several decades ago. Yes, you don't need a distro to run Linux (as I said before), but most people who run Linux use one. However, Linux distros, while they play an app store-like role, are still very different from the Windows or Mac app stores. First, they don't restrict what else you can install on the system; you don't have to jailbreak your Linux computer to install something that the distro doesn't package. Second, they don't insist that you set up an account and hand over your personal information, or nag you constantly if you don't do that.
HappMacDonald 2y ago
OTOH I view application installation as a separate skill from $THING_THIS_APP_DOES. So I would rather the app authors just focus on perfecting their apps, while said apps can then be packaged and distributed in bulk by different sets of people trained to handle those challenges. What I very certainly do NOT want is: * Apps automatically checking for updates on startup — since they can't check while they are off — leading to needlessly leaked data crossing the network about exactly when I'm starting up exactly which apps (since they dial home to predictable locations regardless of TLS usage) * Apps constantly filling systray with their own bespoke updaters (and "accelerators" which just means the app is running 24/7 but minimized to tray ;P ) * App launches updater, updater window says "can't update because app is running". Close app, wait for update, now I have to go hunt down the document I had originally opened the app with. Next time an app launches an updater, I leave it on its splash screen and go to close the app.. naturally that also closes the updater since this time around the one is a sub-process of the other. (I recall earlier versions of Wireshark causing me much grief on these fronts, for example) * More diverse attack surface area for hackers to infect my PC: instead of trying to juke a distro who has at least some experience and vested interest in defending against poisoning, just juke any single software author less specialized in distribution security and take over their distribution channel instead.
ndiddy 2y ago
Great news, there's a distro called Slackware that eschews centralized package management (besides optionally delivering updates for preinstalled packages). It's been around for ~20 years before you started using Linux. If you'd like to rid yourself of the curse of centralized package management in favor of running "./configure && make && sudo make install" like a real man, you should give it a try.
- dartharva 2y ago
  Standalone app installers ≠ compiling from source
graemep 2y ago
Given that every OS is heading towards centralised application updates. Windows Store does that AFAIK. I am guessing MacOS's store does too. The major mobile OSes and its the only way almost all users install anything.
- int_19h 2y ago
  The big difference on those other OSes is that packaging is done by the original author, and they don't have to worry about things like distro release cycles (and package freezes etc). Windows Store is most similar to Flathub in that regard.

pdonis 2y ago

> Apps should be responsible for their own updates, not the OS. Distros are not quite "the OS". You don't need a distro to run Linux. The role distros play as far as Linux applications are concerned is more like an app store in the Windows (or Mac) world. Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way basically since their inception, and their desktop OS has been becoming more and more like that. So has Windows.

dartharva 2y ago
> Of course Apple has locked down their smartphones that way... So has Windows. Is that where we want desktop Linux to go?
- pdonis 2y ago
  If you mean, do we want desktop Linux to have distros, that ship sailed several decades ago. Yes, you don't need a distro to run Linux (as I said before), but most people who run Linux use one. However, Linux distros, while they play an app store-like role, are still very different from the Windows or Mac app stores. First, they don't restrict what else you can install on the system; you don't have to jailbreak your Linux computer to install something that the distro doesn't package. Second, they don't insist that you set up an account and hand over your personal information, or nag you constantly if you don't do that.

HappMacDonald 2y ago

OTOH I view application installation as a separate skill from $THING_THIS_APP_DOES. So I would rather the app authors just focus on perfecting their apps, while said apps can then be packaged and distributed in bulk by different sets of people trained to handle those challenges. What I very certainly do NOT want is: * Apps automatically checking for updates on startup — since they can't check while they are off — leading to needlessly leaked data crossing the network about exactly when I'm starting up exactly which apps (since they dial home to predictable locations regardless of TLS usage) * Apps constantly filling systray with their own bespoke updaters (and "accelerators" which just means the app is running 24/7 but minimized to tray ;P ) * App launches updater, updater window says "can't update because app is running". Close app, wait for update, now I have to go hunt down the document I had originally opened the app with. Next time an app launches an updater, I leave it on its splash screen and go to close the app.. naturally that also closes the updater since this time around the one is a sub-process of the other. (I recall earlier versions of Wireshark causing me much grief on these fronts, for example) * More diverse attack surface area for hackers to infect my PC: instead of trying to juke a distro who has at least some experience and vested interest in defending against poisoning, just juke any single software author less specialized in distribution security and take over their distribution channel instead.

ndiddy 2y ago

Great news, there's a distro called Slackware that eschews centralized package management (besides optionally delivering updates for preinstalled packages). It's been around for ~20 years before you started using Linux. If you'd like to rid yourself of the curse of centralized package management in favor of running "./configure && make && sudo make install" like a real man, you should give it a try.

dartharva 2y ago
Standalone app installers ≠ compiling from source

graemep 2y ago

Given that every OS is heading towards centralised application updates. Windows Store does that AFAIK. I am guessing MacOS's store does too. The major mobile OSes and its the only way almost all users install anything.

int_19h 2y ago
The big difference on those other OSes is that packaging is done by the original author, and they don't have to worry about things like distro release cycles (and package freezes etc). Windows Store is most similar to Flathub in that regard.