I don’t really like the way software installation is centralized on Linux. It feels like, Windows being the proprietary system, they don’t really care about how you get things to run. Linux the other hand cares about it a lot. Either you have to write your own software or interact with their ‘trusted sources’.
I would prefer if it was easier to simply run an executable file on my personal Linux machine.
I don’t really like the way software installation is centralized on Linux.
you have to interact with their ‘trusted sources’.
I would prefer if it was easier to simply run an executable file on my personal Linux machine.
I’m sorry but which is it? Do you want centralized software installation (this is literally how all of Microsoft Windows works.) Or do you want independent release software? (Those are the ‘trusted sources’ you seem to detest.)
And there are plenty of programs that run as an independent file on Linux, installers even. They just aren’t labeled .exe.
Either you want Linux and want independent control of your desktop system and environment or you want to be spoonfed everything as a Windows or OSX user. So which is it??
You can also just download any binary file you find online and run it. Or use any install.sh script you happen to find anywhere.
Package managers are simply a convenient offer to manage packages with their dynamically linked libraries and keep them up to date (important for security). But it’s still just an offer.
The entire point is you don’t need to wait through a slow installer, you just open discover or software center and install whatever software you need. In addition to being easier and more intuitive its also more secure (you’re less likely to receive binaries from a malicious actor)
The difference between a package manager and an app store is that the package manager allows you to pick your own sources. You can even run your own repository if you wanted to.
You can still do that on Linux. Just download it and run. You can even compile it from source if that’s your thing.
However, because there is a much greater variety of Linux distros and dependencies compared to Windows or MacOS versions, it’s better to either have a Flatpak, AppImage, or package from your distro’s repo. That way you’re ensured that it will work without too much fiddling around.
Developers can just make a flatpak, publish it on flathub (or their own repo if they want, but ugh) and that’s it. Then you install the app through GUI package manager or by executing flatpak install <package name> command in your favorite terminal.
Software Installation is all but centralized on Linux. Sure, there is your store or package manager, but both Apple and Windows do have that, too. But you can always add any source you want to that store (flatpak is great), find an AppImage, some doubious install script, find your own packages and manually install them (like .deb), use Steam or sometimes, like with Blender, download, decompress and run it.
As others have pointed out you can do this, but there are at least two major advantages to the way Linux distributions use package managers:
Shared libraries - on Windows most binaries will have their own code libraries rolled into them, which means that every program which uses that library has installed a copy of it on your hard drive, which is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of hard drive space, and means that when a new version of the library is released you still have to wait for each program developer to implement it in a new version of their binary. On Linux, applications installed via the package manager can share a single copy of common dependencies like code libraries, and that library can be updated separately from the applications that use it.
Easy updating - on Windows you would have to download new versions of each program individually and install them when a new version is released. If you don’t do this regularly in today’s internet-dependent world, you expose your system to a lot of vulnerabilities. With a Linux package manager you can simply issue the update command (e.g. sudo apt upgrade) and the package manager will download all the new versions of the applications and install them for you.
I can respect the value of point 1 - that’s nominally why we have .DLL files and the System32 folder, among other places. There are means to share libraries built into the OS, people just don’t bother for various reasons - as you said, version differences are a noted reason. It’s ‘inefficient’, but it hasn’t hurt the general user experience.
To point 2, the answer for me is simple: I don’t trust upgrades anymore - that’s not an OS-dependent problem, that’s an issue of programmers and and UI developers chasing mindless trends instead of maintaining a functioning experience from the get-go. They change the UX, they require newer and more expensive computers for their utterly pointless flashy nonsense, and generally it leads to upgrades and updates just being a problem for me. In a setting like mine where my PC is actually personal, I’m quite happy to keep a specific set of programs that are known to be working, and then only consider budging after I’m sure it won’t break my workflow. I don’t want all the software to update at once, that’s an absolute nightmare scenario to me and will lead to immediate defenestration of the PC when any of the programs I use changes its UI again. I’m still actively raging at Firefox for going to the Australis garbage appearance, and I first moved to LibreOffice just because OpenOffice switched to a “ribbon”. I’ve had that same thing happen to other programs. I’m done with it.
Once I decide I’m going to continue using a program for a purpose, I don’t want some genius monkeying about with how I use it.
And as far as security, I can use an AV software or malware scanner that updates the database without breaking the user experience. I don’t need anyone else worrying about security except the piece(s) of software specifically built to mind it.
That’s literally what I wrote on a satirical post about moving to Windows! https://lemmy.world/comment/14612934 Except I was being sarcastic and you’re being serious.
I don’t really like the way software installation is centralized on Linux. It feels like, Windows being the proprietary system, they don’t really care about how you get things to run. Linux the other hand cares about it a lot. Either you have to write your own software or interact with their ‘trusted sources’.
I would prefer if it was easier to simply run an executable file on my personal Linux machine.
I’m sorry but which is it? Do you want centralized software installation (this is literally how all of Microsoft Windows works.) Or do you want independent release software? (Those are the ‘trusted sources’ you seem to detest.)
And there are plenty of programs that run as an independent file on Linux, installers even. They just aren’t labeled .exe.
Either you want Linux and want independent control of your desktop system and environment or you want to be spoonfed everything as a Windows or OSX user. So which is it??
You can also just download any binary file you find online and run it. Or use any
install.shscript you happen to find anywhere.Package managers are simply a convenient offer to manage packages with their dynamically linked libraries and keep them up to date (important for security). But it’s still just an offer.
The entire point is you don’t need to wait through a slow installer, you just open discover or software center and install whatever software you need. In addition to being easier and more intuitive its also more secure (you’re less likely to receive binaries from a malicious actor)
The difference between a package manager and an app store is that the package manager allows you to pick your own sources. You can even run your own repository if you wanted to.
You can still do that on Linux. Just download it and run. You can even compile it from source if that’s your thing.
However, because there is a much greater variety of Linux distros and dependencies compared to Windows or MacOS versions, it’s better to either have a Flatpak, AppImage, or package from your distro’s repo. That way you’re ensured that it will work without too much fiddling around.
Developers can just make a flatpak, publish it on flathub (or their own repo if they want, but ugh) and that’s it. Then you install the app through GUI package manager or by executing
flatpak install <package name>command in your favorite terminal.Do you know about AppImages? Seems like those meet the need you’re complaining about.
You still have to set the executable flag for them, but you can do that through the graphic user interface. No need to open a terminal.
Software Installation is all but centralized on Linux. Sure, there is your store or package manager, but both Apple and Windows do have that, too. But you can always add any source you want to that store (flatpak is great), find an AppImage, some doubious install script, find your own packages and manually install them (like .deb), use Steam or sometimes, like with Blender, download, decompress and run it.
As others have pointed out you can do this, but there are at least two major advantages to the way Linux distributions use package managers:
Shared libraries - on Windows most binaries will have their own code libraries rolled into them, which means that every program which uses that library has installed a copy of it on your hard drive, which is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of hard drive space, and means that when a new version of the library is released you still have to wait for each program developer to implement it in a new version of their binary. On Linux, applications installed via the package manager can share a single copy of common dependencies like code libraries, and that library can be updated separately from the applications that use it.
Easy updating - on Windows you would have to download new versions of each program individually and install them when a new version is released. If you don’t do this regularly in today’s internet-dependent world, you expose your system to a lot of vulnerabilities. With a Linux package manager you can simply issue the update command (e.g.
sudo apt upgrade) and the package manager will download all the new versions of the applications and install them for you.I can respect the value of point 1 - that’s nominally why we have .DLL files and the System32 folder, among other places. There are means to share libraries built into the OS, people just don’t bother for various reasons - as you said, version differences are a noted reason. It’s ‘inefficient’, but it hasn’t hurt the general user experience.
To point 2, the answer for me is simple: I don’t trust upgrades anymore - that’s not an OS-dependent problem, that’s an issue of programmers and and UI developers chasing mindless trends instead of maintaining a functioning experience from the get-go. They change the UX, they require newer and more expensive computers for their utterly pointless flashy nonsense, and generally it leads to upgrades and updates just being a problem for me. In a setting like mine where my PC is actually personal, I’m quite happy to keep a specific set of programs that are known to be working, and then only consider budging after I’m sure it won’t break my workflow. I don’t want all the software to update at once, that’s an absolute nightmare scenario to me and will lead to immediate defenestration of the PC when any of the programs I use changes its UI again. I’m still actively raging at Firefox for going to the Australis garbage appearance, and I first moved to LibreOffice just because OpenOffice switched to a “ribbon”. I’ve had that same thing happen to other programs. I’m done with it.
Once I decide I’m going to continue using a program for a purpose, I don’t want some genius monkeying about with how I use it.
And as far as security, I can use an AV software or malware scanner that updates the database without breaking the user experience. I don’t need anyone else worrying about security except the piece(s) of software specifically built to mind it.
That’s literally what I wrote on a satirical post about moving to Windows! https://lemmy.world/comment/14612934 Except I was being sarcastic and you’re being serious.
Yup. We probably have different use-cases and different kinds of BS tolerance. Your satire is my truth.