5 ms·

This actually looks pretty neat, particularly the integration with Flatpak. One thing that confused me when I first went to Linux a million years ago was the d

This actually looks pretty neat, particularly the integration with Flatpak. One thing that confused me when I first went to Linux a million years ago was the difference in how you install stuff. With Windows you download an exe file, double click it, next next next finish, and you have your app installed. With Linux, every distro is slightly different and it's almost never quite as straightforward to people. I think Flatpak has the potential to bring that kind of Windows-style of installation to the masses, and it always kind of annoyed me that Ubuntu doesn't embrace Flatpak outta the box.

neilv 1y ago
Flatpak is great for people who wish they were running Microsoft. Others can just run a distro for people who believe in open source software.
- tombert 1y ago
  I run NixOS so I have my own opinions on the best way to package software. I'm just saying that I think Flatpak is, if nothing else, good for people who want to transition away from Microsoft. My parents are both pretty smart people but I genuinely doubt that I would be successful in converting over to Linux if they have to type `sudo apt search my_package` and then `sudo apt install my_package` all the time. For people like them, who have been on windows for the last thirty years, I think that Flatpak is great.
  - j45 1y ago
    Agreed. Also the majority of people like to do things with a computer other than, or rather than work on the operating system. I like customizing my OS. But it shouldn’t be a barrier or gatekeep beginners out.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    > if they have to type `sudo apt search my_package` and then `sudo apt install my_package` all the time. As opposed to the much easier `flatpak install com.fqdn.app.name`? Don't confuse underlying package format with CLI/GUI; Synaptic, GNOME Software, Plasma Discover, etc. are fine ways to install normal packages.
    - tombert 1y ago
      I've had it set up so you can just double-click the Flatpak files, not too dissimilar to an exe download.
  - the__alchemist 1y ago
    You don't have to be non-technical to prefer a simple, non-memorize-text way to install things.
- TheFreim 1y ago
  > Others can just run a distro for people who believe in open source software. What about Flatpak is contrary to open source software as you seem imply? Flatpak itself is free software, so is most of the software packaged with it. There are quite a few good reasons to use Flatpak, especially for developers who want to make their software available on different distributions without wanting to worry about packaging separately themselves. There are valid criticisms of it, but being somehow against open source software or being somehow related to Microsoft is not one of them.
  - j45 1y ago
    People don’t seem to understand the world doesn’t have to accept a solely form of packaging - theirs. Flatpak might not be for me, it certainly helps get some beginners to Linux going. If they outgrow it, that’s great, or maybe they never need to.
  - neilv 1y ago
    Calling it (edit: using the term) "free software" is a great example of utterly failing to promote your own principles, and stabbing the entire mission in the face. Let's try to repurpose an incredibly widely used pre-existing term, that means almost the opposite of the essence of our entire mission, to mean our mission. And every time people tell us that's moronic, we double down. As we continue to watch people somehow totally miss the point of the mission, but surely the fact that we're mind-bogglingly self-sabotaging at advocacy can't have anything to do with that. We should totally keep stabbing ourselves in the face. IMHO, it is one of the most shameful failures of marketing of the last century.
    - TheFreim 1y ago
      Flatpak is unambiguously and undeniably free and open source software and the fact that you think it isn't demonstrates that you have been misinformed. The Flatpak project is licensed with the LGPL. Furthermore, the vast majority of software packaged with Flatpak is free and open source software. https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak
- dartharva 1y ago
  It's the opposite. Windows users don't procure their software from centralized stores, they install them from each of their individual installers downloaded from their respective websites.
slim 1y ago
On your mobile phone you install software like in linux, by looking it up in the store. Windows is the outlier
- tombert 1y ago
  Sure, but it's a big outlier. It's one of those things, I think younger people would adapt to Linux just fine because of the reason you stated, but I think people my age (or my parents' age) would have the most trouble with it. When I learned how to use a computer, outside of the Commodore 64 that I broke as a little kid, I learned to download .exe files and next next next finish to install, as did my parents.
- thewebguyd 1y ago
  Unless you're looking for dev tools, then we are back to downloading an exe in the form of curl | bash taking over everywhere.
- mrheosuper 1y ago
  I've seen many times in Linux, the version in app store is different from its website(usually outdated).
  - razemio 1y ago
    Yes, this makes sense, since most distros use a "standard release" system. The intention behind it is to keep your OS stable and only apply security patches at some point. If you want to have a system with always the newest software, you need to use a "rolling release " system. I think Arch Linux is the most popular (arch user btw). This is much more fun, if you know what you are doing. Otherwise you will end up with a broken system pretty fast. Ofc you can fix it, but depending on experience and skill something like Ubuntu is the better choice.
    - the__alchemist 1y ago
      I think this is a conflation of the OS with the software a user is running on it.
abrookewood 1y ago
You can also download an MSI file ... or execute a Powershell script ... or install via chocolatey ... or install via myget ... or install via winget ... or the Windows Store Not quite as straight forward as you are suggesting.
- tombert 1y ago
  MSI files are still basically the same experience as the exe. The rest are pretty developer-centric, except the Windows Store, which I agree is more analogous.
- wvenable 1y ago
  It used to be that simple but Microsoft (and others) are intent on copying Linux here. That would probably be fine on Windows as well as Linux if there was just one standard.
pkulak 1y ago
If you’re gonna install everything as a flatpak, run Debian stable.
alerighi 1y ago
Honestly, the fact that to install software you have to go on a site, download an installer, and run it, is one of the reasons why I don't like Windows. Not only that thing is time consuming and cannot be easily automated, but it's error prone, you are likely to find in the first Google results not the official website of the software but some other site like Softonic that with the software also installs bloatware/malware/toolbars/etc. Of course an expert user can distinguish the official site from a scam, but usually the average computer user can't. What I like about Linux is just that you type in a terminal (or you use one of the many GUI that exist) `sudo apt install <software name>` and a version of that software, along with its dependencies, it is installed. And not only installed, but packaged, if needed patched, and tested to work along with other software in the distribution. When I install Windows I spend at least 1 hours going to every website of software that I need, download the installer, run the installer, click next, next, next, and repeat. With Linux I can just type in a single command every software that I need, let it run and install it, while I do other things. And when you need to uninstall a software? On Windows you need the uninstaller, that if it was not created correctly, or created at all, will leave a lot of stuff on the system, files, registry keys, broken links, cache files, etc that you need to remove either manually or with some "cleaner" programs that do more harm than good, for that reason an installation of Windows needs to be formatted every X years cause of the accumulated crap. From a developer point of view, and I've done many times, writing an installer for Windows, even using open source frameworks like NSIS, is a manual operation that is time consuming, can induce in errors, you need to learn a specific scripting language, etc, while making a package for Ubuntu/Debian (for example) is a simple operation, as simple as put the files of your software in a directory, put in a metadata file, and launch a command to produce the package. Most build systems (automake, cmake) already can create deb packages automatically with commonly used plugins.
- the__alchemist 1y ago
  Anecdote: Most of the software I use isn't available in `apt`, or the version there is dated. I prefer to get software from its official source, not a third party I don't know will have the current or any versions. And, there is more to software than free/OSS.
prmoustache 1y ago
It has been years most distros allows you to install apps through tools like Gnome Software or KDE <whichever its name is> which look exactly like an app store regardless if you are using flatpak or regular packages.
wsc981 1y ago
I feel the Mac way is preferable, if possible. Download a package (disk image) - macOS automatically extracts to the desktop. Drag and drop the application from the disk image into the /Applications directory. Done. This is the way, I believe, most software should be installed. I understand some stuff might need to touch system files and for that, perhaps a wizard makes sense.
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  The Mac way kind of depends on how you get your application. Sometimes applications come from the app store, sometimes they're ZIP'ed files that get auto-extracted, sometimes they're in DMGs that are mounted but not extracted, and sometimes they open some kind of install wizard. Some of them you can open by right-clicking them and hitting open. Others just open directly. There are also apps that throw up an error when you try to open them and you need to go to the security settings to hit an oddly-placed button to open them. Whether or not you've managed to run the program at least once also seems to influence whether or not an app in the applications folder actually shows up in Launchpad. Windows does half of this too these days, but these days every OS is confusing and needs specific know-how when you just want to run the tool you downloaded.
- ZaoLahma 1y ago
  It's neat enough, but I still prefer to not have to download stuff, and instead have the available software in a central repository. There's a reason why projects like Homebrew exist for Mac.
  - pidgeon_lover 1y ago
    Central repositories and package managers are the reason I avoid Linux - I like to keep offline backups of old software. This is extremely difficult on Linux and you have to trust the package managers to keep your software available. I do not trust them to do so, and have faced countless issues at work with package deprecation on industrial Linux boxes. I end up having to manually search for and archive a million DEBs, which I can then manually install, and it ends up just being a very messy and time consuming way of approximating a fraction of Windows/Mac/Android's power.
bodge5000 1y ago
An interesting anecdote for you about just how much an exe/dmg equivalent may be the missing link to mass adoption: My older brother needed a new laptop. A little bit of background about him, he is not technically inclined at all and doesn't want to be. He uses Siri to operate things like alarms and reminders on his iPhone because he doesn't know how to use them. I even offered to show him, he doesn't want to know. This is someone for who an alarm clock app is too technical to get involved in. So anyway, he needed a new laptop, and I of course had a fair collection of Thinkpads so gave him one of them; loaded up with Fedora (Gnome as the DE). I installed the basics he uses, pretty much just Chrome and the Spotify Desktop app. He's been using that for a few years now and far less than having difficulty with it, he actually loves it, and says (I suppose mostly due to the speed of it) that he wouldn't want to go back to Windows. Now obviously Flatpak can install everything he uses there, but I think for most people, that being an option rather than a requirement is scary. Windows doesn't have the option of using .exe, thats just how you install things, like it or not (*yes I know there's winget and whatnot, but you've gotta be pretty in the weeds to even be aware that exists). And if you want to install some non-free software, you can find yourself in a difficult position. Clearly from my brothers case, Linux is now at a point where anyone can use it, I do think the last missing link is a unified executable/installer, that works across distros (in his mind, he's not using Fedora, he's using linux) and works in the same way as exe and dmg. And not just as another option either (see xkcd 927), but as a core requirement of shipping on Linux, and that's a far more difficult problem to solve.

neilv 1y ago

Flatpak is great for people who wish they were running Microsoft. Others can just run a distro for people who believe in open source software.

tombert 1y ago
I run NixOS so I have my own opinions on the best way to package software. I'm just saying that I think Flatpak is, if nothing else, good for people who want to transition away from Microsoft. My parents are both pretty smart people but I genuinely doubt that I would be successful in converting over to Linux if they have to type `sudo apt search my_package` and then `sudo apt install my_package` all the time. For people like them, who have been on windows for the last thirty years, I think that Flatpak is great.
- j45 1y ago
  Agreed. Also the majority of people like to do things with a computer other than, or rather than work on the operating system. I like customizing my OS. But it shouldn’t be a barrier or gatekeep beginners out.
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
  > if they have to type `sudo apt search my_package` and then `sudo apt install my_package` all the time. As opposed to the much easier `flatpak install com.fqdn.app.name`? Don't confuse underlying package format with CLI/GUI; Synaptic, GNOME Software, Plasma Discover, etc. are fine ways to install normal packages.
  - tombert 1y ago
    I've had it set up so you can just double-click the Flatpak files, not too dissimilar to an exe download.
- the__alchemist 1y ago
  You don't have to be non-technical to prefer a simple, non-memorize-text way to install things.
TheFreim 1y ago
> Others can just run a distro for people who believe in open source software. What about Flatpak is contrary to open source software as you seem imply? Flatpak itself is free software, so is most of the software packaged with it. There are quite a few good reasons to use Flatpak, especially for developers who want to make their software available on different distributions without wanting to worry about packaging separately themselves. There are valid criticisms of it, but being somehow against open source software or being somehow related to Microsoft is not one of them.
- j45 1y ago
  People don’t seem to understand the world doesn’t have to accept a solely form of packaging - theirs. Flatpak might not be for me, it certainly helps get some beginners to Linux going. If they outgrow it, that’s great, or maybe they never need to.
- neilv 1y ago
  Calling it (edit: using the term) "free software" is a great example of utterly failing to promote your own principles, and stabbing the entire mission in the face. Let's try to repurpose an incredibly widely used pre-existing term, that means almost the opposite of the essence of our entire mission, to mean our mission. And every time people tell us that's moronic, we double down. As we continue to watch people somehow totally miss the point of the mission, but surely the fact that we're mind-bogglingly self-sabotaging at advocacy can't have anything to do with that. We should totally keep stabbing ourselves in the face. IMHO, it is one of the most shameful failures of marketing of the last century.
  - TheFreim 1y ago
    Flatpak is unambiguously and undeniably free and open source software and the fact that you think it isn't demonstrates that you have been misinformed. The Flatpak project is licensed with the LGPL. Furthermore, the vast majority of software packaged with Flatpak is free and open source software. https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak
dartharva 1y ago
It's the opposite. Windows users don't procure their software from centralized stores, they install them from each of their individual installers downloaded from their respective websites.

slim 1y ago

On your mobile phone you install software like in linux, by looking it up in the store. Windows is the outlier

tombert 1y ago
Sure, but it's a big outlier. It's one of those things, I think younger people would adapt to Linux just fine because of the reason you stated, but I think people my age (or my parents' age) would have the most trouble with it. When I learned how to use a computer, outside of the Commodore 64 that I broke as a little kid, I learned to download .exe files and next next next finish to install, as did my parents.
thewebguyd 1y ago
Unless you're looking for dev tools, then we are back to downloading an exe in the form of curl | bash taking over everywhere.
mrheosuper 1y ago
I've seen many times in Linux, the version in app store is different from its website(usually outdated).
- razemio 1y ago
  Yes, this makes sense, since most distros use a "standard release" system. The intention behind it is to keep your OS stable and only apply security patches at some point. If you want to have a system with always the newest software, you need to use a "rolling release " system. I think Arch Linux is the most popular (arch user btw). This is much more fun, if you know what you are doing. Otherwise you will end up with a broken system pretty fast. Ofc you can fix it, but depending on experience and skill something like Ubuntu is the better choice.
  - the__alchemist 1y ago
    I think this is a conflation of the OS with the software a user is running on it.

abrookewood 1y ago

You can also download an MSI file ... or execute a Powershell script ... or install via chocolatey ... or install via myget ... or install via winget ... or the Windows Store Not quite as straight forward as you are suggesting.

tombert 1y ago
MSI files are still basically the same experience as the exe. The rest are pretty developer-centric, except the Windows Store, which I agree is more analogous.
wvenable 1y ago
It used to be that simple but Microsoft (and others) are intent on copying Linux here. That would probably be fine on Windows as well as Linux if there was just one standard.

pkulak 1y ago

If you’re gonna install everything as a flatpak, run Debian stable.

alerighi 1y ago

Honestly, the fact that to install software you have to go on a site, download an installer, and run it, is one of the reasons why I don't like Windows. Not only that thing is time consuming and cannot be easily automated, but it's error prone, you are likely to find in the first Google results not the official website of the software but some other site like Softonic that with the software also installs bloatware/malware/toolbars/etc. Of course an expert user can distinguish the official site from a scam, but usually the average computer user can't. What I like about Linux is just that you type in a terminal (or you use one of the many GUI that exist) `sudo apt install <software name>` and a version of that software, along with its dependencies, it is installed. And not only installed, but packaged, if needed patched, and tested to work along with other software in the distribution. When I install Windows I spend at least 1 hours going to every website of software that I need, download the installer, run the installer, click next, next, next, and repeat. With Linux I can just type in a single command every software that I need, let it run and install it, while I do other things. And when you need to uninstall a software? On Windows you need the uninstaller, that if it was not created correctly, or created at all, will leave a lot of stuff on the system, files, registry keys, broken links, cache files, etc that you need to remove either manually or with some "cleaner" programs that do more harm than good, for that reason an installation of Windows needs to be formatted every X years cause of the accumulated crap. From a developer point of view, and I've done many times, writing an installer for Windows, even using open source frameworks like NSIS, is a manual operation that is time consuming, can induce in errors, you need to learn a specific scripting language, etc, while making a package for Ubuntu/Debian (for example) is a simple operation, as simple as put the files of your software in a directory, put in a metadata file, and launch a command to produce the package. Most build systems (automake, cmake) already can create deb packages automatically with commonly used plugins.

the__alchemist 1y ago
Anecdote: Most of the software I use isn't available in `apt`, or the version there is dated. I prefer to get software from its official source, not a third party I don't know will have the current or any versions. And, there is more to software than free/OSS.

prmoustache 1y ago

It has been years most distros allows you to install apps through tools like Gnome Software or KDE <whichever its name is> which look exactly like an app store regardless if you are using flatpak or regular packages.

wsc981 1y ago

I feel the Mac way is preferable, if possible. Download a package (disk image) - macOS automatically extracts to the desktop. Drag and drop the application from the disk image into the /Applications directory. Done. This is the way, I believe, most software should be installed. I understand some stuff might need to touch system files and for that, perhaps a wizard makes sense.

jeroenhd 1y ago
The Mac way kind of depends on how you get your application. Sometimes applications come from the app store, sometimes they're ZIP'ed files that get auto-extracted, sometimes they're in DMGs that are mounted but not extracted, and sometimes they open some kind of install wizard. Some of them you can open by right-clicking them and hitting open. Others just open directly. There are also apps that throw up an error when you try to open them and you need to go to the security settings to hit an oddly-placed button to open them. Whether or not you've managed to run the program at least once also seems to influence whether or not an app in the applications folder actually shows up in Launchpad. Windows does half of this too these days, but these days every OS is confusing and needs specific know-how when you just want to run the tool you downloaded.
ZaoLahma 1y ago
It's neat enough, but I still prefer to not have to download stuff, and instead have the available software in a central repository. There's a reason why projects like Homebrew exist for Mac.
- pidgeon_lover 1y ago
  Central repositories and package managers are the reason I avoid Linux - I like to keep offline backups of old software. This is extremely difficult on Linux and you have to trust the package managers to keep your software available. I do not trust them to do so, and have faced countless issues at work with package deprecation on industrial Linux boxes. I end up having to manually search for and archive a million DEBs, which I can then manually install, and it ends up just being a very messy and time consuming way of approximating a fraction of Windows/Mac/Android's power.

bodge5000 1y ago

An interesting anecdote for you about just how much an exe/dmg equivalent may be the missing link to mass adoption: My older brother needed a new laptop. A little bit of background about him, he is not technically inclined at all and doesn't want to be. He uses Siri to operate things like alarms and reminders on his iPhone because he doesn't know how to use them. I even offered to show him, he doesn't want to know. This is someone for who an alarm clock app is too technical to get involved in. So anyway, he needed a new laptop, and I of course had a fair collection of Thinkpads so gave him one of them; loaded up with Fedora (Gnome as the DE). I installed the basics he uses, pretty much just Chrome and the Spotify Desktop app. He's been using that for a few years now and far less than having difficulty with it, he actually loves it, and says (I suppose mostly due to the speed of it) that he wouldn't want to go back to Windows. Now obviously Flatpak can install everything he uses there, but I think for most people, that being an option rather than a requirement is scary. Windows doesn't have the option of using .exe, thats just how you install things, like it or not (*yes I know there's winget and whatnot, but you've gotta be pretty in the weeds to even be aware that exists). And if you want to install some non-free software, you can find yourself in a difficult position. Clearly from my brothers case, Linux is now at a point where anyone can use it, I do think the last missing link is a unified executable/installer, that works across distros (in his mind, he's not using Fedora, he's using linux) and works in the same way as exe and dmg. And not just as another option either (see xkcd 927), but as a core requirement of shipping on Linux, and that's a far more difficult problem to solve.