[Package Management] Linux Counterpart to "M$ Store vs Program Files"

[slimySwagger]

When using Windows, I personally prefer downloading and installing .exe or .msi directly from web. Reason as follows:
1. M$ Store is a bloated mess;
2. Installing from .exe and .msi has been around for a long time. This technique is mature and this is what most people have been doing for years.
And from this we can see how package management works on Windows:
1. The whole point of M$'s existence is to provide a OS;
2. Developers only need to maintain a .exe or .msi.

Linux does features such a package management method. "Program Files" on Windows, where softwares not from M$ Store usually go to, have some direct counterparts on Linux (/usr, /usr/local, and /opt). However, this doesn't mean Linux has got a pleasant package management experience:
1. The "Program Files" approach is technically possible, but not recommended, 'cause it may "break your system", according to this: https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian;
2. Using package managers is the way to go, but this also comes with some downsides:
....1. Native repo of each Linux distro comes with a limited number of packages;
....2. Stable base OS is tied to stable extra packages:
........1. You can do things like backport on Debian, but they're not recommended for a reason;
........2. Windows users don't have to join Windows Insider Program in order to install a latest .exe;
3. Adding third party repos is a matter of trust;
4. App stores like AppImage, Flatpak and Snap provide a wider range of choices, but they've got their own problems.
Also, from a developer's perspective:
1. Have to maintain a lot of packages (e.g., .deb, .rpm) in order to make a program accessible to users on different distros;
2. The whole point of app stores is to eliminate such inconvenience, but if you only ship it to Snap, non-snap users will complain about snap monopoly;
3. Have to maintain a lot of packages in order to make a program accessible to users using different app stores.

I like Linux, and I like the whole concept of "open source" and "free as freedom", I know it's humiliating for some Linux elites to compare Linux with Windows, but the package management on Linux is making everyone painful. I don't like watch the world burn, but all I can do is posting a thread about it.

[canci]

the package management on Linux is making everyone painful.

I think you presuppose that all people prefer the Windows way of managing software, which isn't true at all. I prefer the Linux way of package management. Most of what I need is in the Debian repos, the rest is there as Flatpak/AppImage if I ever need it.

I used Windows at home in the late 90s, early 00s. This very manual installation procedure was a horrible experience that even seemed outdated back then. And it's still mostly done that way. And their new store is, as you said, bloated and inefficient. It's doing something badly that Debian or Slackware managed to solve back in 1993. My current experience with Windows 10 at work is equally underwhelming and baffling as it was back in 1998.

The only thing I'm missing in apt package management currently is support for fine grained rights management for programmes. Same as Android or iOS have, or how Flatpak is supposed to have. E.g., I'd like to have an internal option within dpkg/apt to tell Firefox not to be able to access anything other than .firefox or Downloads.

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

Also, from a developer's perspective:
1. Have to maintain a lot of packages (e.g., .deb, .rpm) in order to make a program accessible to users on different distros;
2. The whole point of app stores is to eliminate such inconvenience, but if you only ship it to Snap, non-snap users will complain about snap monopoly;
3. Have to maintain a lot of packages in order to make a program accessible to users using different app stores.

As a developer, You don't have to care about any packaging system.
Developers only have to provide information how to compile the program, and 99.999% of projects for Linux-based systems are using a single standard method for this: the autoconf and automake scripts.

Packages are created by distro developers or dedicated maintainers.
Your program will be packaged by the community if it's only worth attention.

Of course the above does not apply if You want to distribute closed source binary blobs.

Regards.

[canci]

Of course the above does not apply if You want to distribute closed source binary blobs.

I thankfully have not much use for proprietary software these days, but isn't Snap a very proprietary-friendly store? So even those bases are covered.

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

Of course the above does not apply if You want to distribute closed source binary blobs.

I thankfully have not much use for proprietary software these days, but isn't Snap a very proprietary-friendly store? So even those bases are covered.

IMO Snap is not especially "closed-source - friendly" - because Snap and Flatpak are generally functioning as a "software loaders" - both open and closed source programs can be distributed in this way. The biggest problem with Snap/Flatpak, etc, is that it's extremely easy to create packages which are containing viruses/malware/spyware.

[NorthEast]

slimySwagger wrote:

Native repo of each Linux distro comes with a limited number of packages;

This is very true. There is a limit. It's over 51,000 at the moment in Debian.

[canci]

slimySwagger wrote:

Native repo of each Linux distro comes with a limited number of packages;

This is very true. There is a limit. It's over 51,000 at the moment in Debian.

and growing, or so I've heard

[craigevil]

Synaptic shows 66121 packages available.

Code: Select all

Repos:
  Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list
    1: deb https://deb.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
    2: deb https://deb.debian.org/debian experimental main contrib non-free
    3: deb https://incoming.debian.org/debian-buildd buildd-unstable main contrib non-free
  No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/docker.list
  Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/github-cli.list
    1: deb [arch=arm64 signed-by=/usr/share/keyrings/githubcli-archive-keyring.gpg] https://cli.github.com/packages stable main
  Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/raspi.list
    1: deb https://archive.raspberrypi.org/debian/ buster main
    2: deb https://archive.raspberrypi.org/debian/ bullseye main
  No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/rpirepo.list
  No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/sublime-text.list
  No active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/syncthing.list
  Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/vivaldi.list
    1: deb [arch=arm64] http://repo.vivaldi.com/stable/deb/ stable main

Packages: 3263 (dpkg), 8 (flatpak), 9 (snap)

[NorthEast]

canci wrote in relation to the number of debian packages:

and growing, or so I've heard

You are absolutely correct. Pardon my underestimate. The latest number which I saw at https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debi ... 02.en.html is 65,411.

[pcalvert]

........1. You can do things like backport on Debian, but they're not recommended for a reason;

That's not true. Limited use of backports is okay. What's not recommended is installing lots of backports, like adding the backports repo and then trying to install all of the backported packages.

I like Linux, and I like the whole concept of "open source" and "free as freedom", I know it's humiliating for some Linux elites to compare Linux with Windows, but the package management on Linux is making everyone painful.

I disagree. The Windows way is terrible. The ridiculous amount of time it takes for Windows to check for updates, and then download and install the available updates is proof of that.

This may interest you:
https://bedrocklinux.org/

[LE_746F6D617A7A69]

I like Linux, and I like the whole concept of "open source" and "free as freedom", I know it's humiliating for some Linux elites to compare Linux with Windows, but the package management on Linux is making everyone painful.

I disagree. The Windows way is terrible. The ridiculous amount of time it takes for Windows to check for updates, and then download and install the available updates is proof of that.

+ countless regressions after updates
+ countless reboots during updates
+ You have to stop your work during updates, which can take down Your PC for hours.

What's the reason for trolling on this forums, especially when in this case it's so easy to show that MS technology is so broken?

[Fossy]

...
I like Linux , and I like the whole concept of "open source" and "free as freedom", I know it's humiliating for some Linux elites to compare Linux with Windows but the package management on Linux is making everyone painful I don't like watch the world burn, but all I can do is posting a thread about it.

You like Linux ?
Don't rack your brains any longer , I wouldn't wait any longer to start using Debian Bullseye , I'm firmly convinced that in no time at all you will be ashamed of yourself for ever putting your trust in Microsoft's Windows operating system and trolling on their behalf on this forum .

[jmgibson1981]

3 Adding third party repos is a matter of trust

Dare I ask what suggests to you that .exe and .msi files from random locations around the internet are safer than a curated repository with multiple levels of failsafes?

Sorry, just found this thread and had to ask...