Binary installers are the future of Linux

Can't we once and for all accept that package managers on linux was a mistake, when are we going to embrace binary-one-file installers?

Other urls found in this thread:

flatpak.org/
appimage.org/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

off yourself, scumbag

It won't work until you have a unified Linux distribution. There are already .deb and .rpm and such but they don't get used enough.

Linux needs better stand-alone executable support too.

Ok Sup Forums let's decide which of these superior application distribution system we are embracing:
flatpak.org/
appimage.org/

Let's ditch this package manightmare thing

I like my package manager. Would be nice to see some better binary installers for programs that aren't included the repos though. Most of the installers I've used weren't very good. Made in Java or some shit, ugly GUI and weird install locations.

>There are already .deb and .rpm and such but they don't get used enough.
Yeah I think distros just need to improve on the package managers they already have which are pretty good, and make them more widely used. Downloading a .deb for something new that isn't in the package manager is easy enough. If you're going to write a program for linux chances are you bundled it in a .deb

There aren't a lot of times where I run into a problem it's difficult to install something on Linux, only that there isn't a program that exists.

One issue I have is there are too many little packages that ought to just be one big thing. And too many dependencies because of it. And the software centers are not descriptive enough.

Package managers are the superior choice (all your installers in one place etc.). Where they fail however is the fact that every distro decided to make their own and as a result, packaging for every distro (and every version of every distro) is a fucking pain.

Fuck off, we're not android. Compiling is good for you, anyway

kill yourself.
A package manger is the only reason I use linux.

>One issue I have is there are too many little packages that ought to just be one big thing. And too many dependencies because of it.
Have you considered trying out Arch GNU+Linux?

Are we seriously having a thread about why allowing every installer to manage itself and having a lot of copies of different version of the same dependencies is better than having a fine granulated control on what is installed in the system and how the packages interacts?
Thanks, now I'm convinced this board became either a telemarketing space or that intelligent people abandoned this board when it became a consumerism board.

Package management is good and should be the primary means of getting software, and repositories should have as much as possible.
However, having some standalone app system for when that doesnt work is good. Compiling can be a massive pain in the ass for certain programs.
For example, krita isnt available in debian testing's repos for some reason, so I use an appimage and it works great. Certainly much faster and easier to use than following the guide to compiling it.
stuff like
is good for when you just use them for one or two things you cant get or cant get the version you want through the normal package manager.

You can have bundled packages with other larger programs. This solved 57507312 issue, but no one cares, because it brings the MS dll hell to the linux (with so files), but downloading portable sw from net is works thanks to this on EVERY linux if it's follow the basic freedesktop standards.

What is :
>$chmod +x mydildo.run
>$sudo sh ./mydildo.run

In most file managers you don't even need to do that, they'll prompt you to run shell scripts and things with or without a terminal

But i wont look like a hacker whenever i install something.

>windows trying desperately to move to a package manager (the store and W10 updates)
>major linux distros trying desperately to move to binary installers
I don't know if this is insanity or the perfect fusion of functionality.

If I can get installers that set up a custom wineprefix and known fully compatible version of wine and also install my weird Japanese games, I'll be able to actually quit Windows. Making non-unicode programs work correctly under wine is such a crapshoot that I still use W7 as a daily driver.

>not having one location to update all your software and manage shared libraries
>instead, using installers, which install redundant libraries, need to self update (and do so whenever they fuckng chose) and never uninstall 100%
>somehow better

How about you let a donkey fuck you to death?

>fine granulated control
holy fuck that damage control

Isn't it impossible to build a distribution agnostic binary for Linux?

Yep, it's called "building from the source" :

>babies first Linux

>packaging for every distro (and every version of every distro) is a fucking pain.
theres no need to do that, it's the distros maintainers job to do that.

>Can't we once and for all accept that package managers on linux was a mistake
Hell no. it's one of the main things which makes Linux superior to Windows.
>when are we going to embrace binary-one-file installers?
Hopefully never.

windows users being stupid as fuck like always :)

./configure
make
make install

error. missing dependencies

What does that fix?

Fuck I forgot... Someone recommended me a good .deb or something like that installer for Ubuntu, came in handy. Do you happen to know the name?

error.Boost.Line.12094.blablabla

>package managers on linux was a mistake
This. This is the very reason why Windows is so popular.

An rpm package is enough

What exactly is there to improve in rpm? It's the most advanced package manager in the world.

Meant to say dnf

pck managers is what makes linux superior

>because it brings the MS dll hell to the linux (with so files),

I hope to god you're joking. Do you even know what libraries are?

>binary-one-file
RUNZ tried doing that.

This is the most retarded thing I've read today.

you would need to either statically link everything or have unified package format

learn to track down dependencies

Ubuntu is already doing something like that.
Although it's closer to the "portable software" approach, I believe.

Please provide a reasoning at least.

it was already mentioned in this thread. Also you can just provide a tarball, put the dependencies on the readme file and let the packagers of the distro do their work. Also you can make a self contained installer like on windows providing all the dependencies inside.

Actually package managers are a perfectly fine way of updating the base system, it's 3rd party applications that really benefit from being able to stand alone.

microsoft has deals with schools, governments and hardware vendors along with a huge marketing campaign, that's the reason why it's popular. If people related the brand "windows" with quality there would be a big demand for "windows" phones, but the fact is that people just uses whatever comes bundled with the hardware that's why android is so popular.