Why do windows programs always have these cancerous installers

why do windows programs always have these cancerous installers

how come linux doesn't

Other urls found in this thread:

archlinux.org/packages/
aur.archlinux.org/
unchecky.com/
wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/Members
gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
store.steampowered.com/app/431730
github.com/aseprite/aseprite/commit/5ecc356a41c8e29977f8608d8826489d24f5fa6c
github.com/aseprite/aseprite
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

because linux doesn't have any software

>accept and install
>malware fighter

>always
only if you're a retard and choose garbage software

>Defending this.
As long you people keep accepting it the situation will never change.

which good software on Windows doesn't have an installer?

Installing malware makes money for those whose malware it is.
Paying people to include it in their installers is a good way to get coverage.

Linux on the other hand has vetted databases of software.

Ffmpeg

Try one that actually installs instead of being portable, and has a GUI

upstream packages

He's right. If Linux was the standard desktop os and had programs, you'd get that shit in Linux.

Except that's false, Linux uses package managers which makes individual installer solutions abundant.

k

>implying steam doesn't have similar shit on linux

That's not Linux's fault, the OS offers a better solution which most software uses, whereas Windows doesn't

Doesn't windows have some sort of 'app store' as well?

Aye.

Yes, but it hardly contains any of the software you'd expect; not to mention that feature-wise it's nothing when compared to proper BSD/Linux package managers

I fear that as more and more Windows users migrate to Linux, they will bring all that shit with them. They ignore package managers and want to use separate installers, because that's what they're used to.

>it hardly contains any of the software you'd expect
Any windows user would say the same about linux package managers.

Either way, the point was that windows does provide better solutions to the cancerous installers in the OP. It's not window's fault that nobody uses it.

If they have a GUI like the Ubuntu Software Center, you can just distribute a link to that - and otherwise .deb files through gdebi should work just fine

Except the Windows problem is that the software exists for Windows, it's just not in the repos, whereas for Linux the software simply doesn't exist for Linux

Also, the Windows app store thing is pretty cancerous on its own

fpbp

like adobe flash?

So all linux software is in every distro's repo's? You're simply wrong about that.

Linux repos cover a far, far wider selection of packages than the Windows app store does

not him, but most other projects just have you build the source code yourself. Packages that have prebuild binaries tend to give you something that plugs into your package manager. I think I've seen one or two portable applications, as well.

IIRC, the android NDK uses an installer, but I don't recall anything else that does.

Right, but not everything is in there. Just like in windows it isn't.

And you can't build from source in windows?

But there is MORE in it
What you're saying is that F-Droid is just as good as the Play Store because neither contain 100% of all Android software

why ?

Because having a million loose files all around the OS isn't a good solution, if you don't know why that is then I suggest you drop technology off of your list of interests

>And you can't build from source in windows?
I suppose you could for some of the packages you're installing. You certainly can't if you're downloading a proprietary application like adobe flash. People tend to use a lot of proprietary applications on Windows, unlike on Linux.

Building from source is a lot easier on Linux than Windows because almost all of the library dependencies are typically available through the package manager. putting libraries into MinGW is a huge pain in the ass.

Because having a million programs modifying the registry is better ?
I didn't think so, Sup Forumsood night

No I'm not. I'm just saying, truthfully, that windows, just like linux, does provide a better solution than these cancerous installers. Windows solution might not be as good or as mature as linux's. but it does exist. You just want to make this into a silly windows vs linux shillfest.

>You certainly can't if you're downloading a proprietary application like adobe flash.
You can't do that on linux either though.

>adobe flash

yeah I download it through my package manager if I want it, since it's on my package manager. I don't have to play the 'try not to install McAffee' game on Linux.

GNU/Linux software has to abide by stricter rules and is generally all installed from a heavily moderated repository.

The real question is, why don't you see stuff like OP's pic on Mac OS?

>Right, but not everything is in there. Just like in windows it isn't.
I get the feeling you're just being contrarian here. If you write some software yourself right now it won't be in the repos, but aside from that, just about everything truly is in the repos. Even things that don't really need a package such as fonts are generally in the repos if the font is at all popular.

>I download it through my package manager
that is not what building from source means lad

Linux doesn't even use a registry

>I don't know how to read
shouldn't you be posting some windows 10 shilling threads?

Because macOS software typically comes in 1 file (secretly a folder) per programme, which all reside in 1 directory. IMO the best possible solution; works great with package managers too

No doubt any popular platform would get that. Yet still saying that linux has no software is an obvious hyperbole, he has no reason to say that unless he's genuinely ignorant which I seriously doubt. Obviously he doesn't want people mentioning that huge problem on Windows do he deflects the conversation towards bashing Linux, what is the point of doing this? Even if linux had the same problem that would not fix the problem windows users have.

You're just moving the goalposts. The argument here is whether or not windows provides better alternatives than cancerous installers. The fact is that yes, they do. I already said windows solution is inferior to linux's, but it exists nonetheless.

You're the one not reading here lad.

Funny how pointing out facts makes me a shill, only on Sup Forums.

You can download sources through package managers

Sources of proprietary software? Lol, please explain.

it's simple, you deny being part of the botnet and download free software

Well, it's not like there isn't a way to ignore those softwares.

>tfw too smart for installers

>because linux doesn't have any software

archlinux.org/packages/
>current number of packages in the main repos: 14963

aur.archlinux.org/
>current number of packages in the AUR: 38229

You do realize that each individual version of windows has at least 10 times that amount, don't you?

nobody cares about your broken shells scripts

>at least 10 times that amount
I highly doubt that...

Maybe with this awesome stuff:
>minecraft windows 10 edition
>candy crush saga
>some racing game with an icon of a red car with a face

>be a microcuck fag
>visit dubious websites
>download a shady installer
>add more bloat to my already bloated OS
>why has my default search provider been changed?
>where do these files on my desktop come from?
>why are there so many unknown processes running in the background after rebooting my machine?

>I highly doubt that...
You must be highly retarded then.

Don't care if i'm a linux fanboy.
I found that funny.

unchecky.com/

>windows requires a whole separate program just to avoid being scammed by installers

my fucking sides

GNU/Linux package managers are the ubermensch solution. We don't have to scour some random third party websites and download shady .exes in hopes they contain the program we want to run and not pure malware (as opposed to just bundled malware in the installer).

We have signed, secure, reviewed software repositories on civilized systems. Why can't Windows do the same?

>Why can't Windows do the same?
It can, they have an app store on windows 10 that serves the same purpose. It's just that no one uses it.

No, the appstore is a source of proprietary software controlled by microsoft and exists to enforce microsoft's control over the programs you install, and how you use them, unlike GNU/Linux repos which exists to provide secure binaries for programs you can usually also build yourself. It exists to help the user, not to restrict him and control him. They are not equivalent and don't even pretend they are, because only a retard would think that.

>the appstore is a source of proprietary software
You can put open source software there though. I think. It's not like I use it.

thats the sound your vagina makes when my dick goes into it

>GNU/Linux package managers
No such thing. Package managers are just a non-unix specific software solution you inherited from the server days, and because you couldn't find software otherwise.
Which is what pisses me off about a lot of linux propagandists. They mix up the advantages of the OS with those of the license and the hackish solutions they had to make to cope.
And they exist for every os that didn't wither away into non-existence 2 decades ago.
> Why can't Windows do the same?
We have package managers, you know?
Several, in fact.

>We have package managers, you know?
>Several, in fact.

And they all suck ass and are laughably limited compared to humble pacman.

It's the same shit.
Look, i even made a pic for you, so you would stop embarrassing yourself on the internet.
You can even drop the first 3 since microsoft, and the last 2 developed by game companies, and we still a number of them, in every form.

>linux users need some kind of safe space because they're too dumb to tell between legit installers and lostboy.tar.gz
>if you do a manual install the package manager shits itself

most of that stuff is just different versions and useless shit

/thread

Because it took until Windows 8 to have a "package manager", except that package manage is based on the idea of an 'app store' for phones, so it's even more cancerous and unused.

Because windows is a botnet OS used by total cucks and tech illiterates.

>92% of people using PC are tech illiterate cucks. Look at me I'm such a special snowflake holy shit

Ayy Lmao well mkay user, how is your neet paycheck going?

Because Windows is trash. GNU/Linux distros like Ubuntu even have GUI software centers to install applications with one click now, but still offers a CLI for Sup Forums users who know the exact package they want to install. You can even get .deb files to install stuff on Debian based distros. GNU/Linux is superior, but faggots like and will cling to Windows, crying about a few pieces of CAD software and whatnot, trying to justify the microdick wedge between their cheeks. GNU/Linux also costs nothing.

Because people can't make money off developing for Linux.

Not true, I buy games for linux.
I'd also buy adobe products.
If anything, moving to linux made me more likely to spend money.
On windows I pirated everything

Yeah, obviously, all these companies:

wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/Members

are in it for the fun of it

>all these companies
>worldwide
>less than 50
Wow, it's fucking nothing.

If Linux had as much marketshare as Windows, you'd see just as much garbage being pushed onto it. Android has no shortage of terrible "apps", for example.

There are PPAs for garbage. Repos get quality, reviewed stuff only.

Because Windows respects software owners' freedom to monetize their work. Thus there's a market to bundle shareware/SaaS with other software in the hopes that the user will install it, find the program useful, and buy the full version/subscribe. So freeware software can be made profitable by combining it with shareware.
You don't see this on Linux because all its software is free as in worth $0. There's no profit in bundling someone else's unpaid half-finished hobbyist project with their own.

lol

i know this is bait but you do know that one of essential freedoms of free software is the freedom to sell it right?

and monetize means "to use as a currency", not sell it for profit

>you do know that one of essential freedoms of free software is the freedom to sell it
Ok, what free software would you like? I'll sell you a copy of it for $10,000.

We don't get that shit in OS X.

>one thing is always the same as the other
BTFO

It's because you need installers to install things in Windows while in Linux, everything is done through the package manager.

gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

here's your redpill faggot now fuck off

What free software would you like? I'll sell you a copy for $10,000.

what's your point nigger?

I'm using my freedom to sell free software. It's not very effective at actually selling free software, now is it?

>Linux on the other hand has vetted databases of software.
Honestly even the stuff I've downloaded from the net and compiled from source hasn't had any of this shit
Probably helps that all the retarded normies use winshit

Yeah but that's because you're a dumb windows nigger

store.steampowered.com/app/431730

here's an example of a guy selling free software and making a living out of it

BTFO

now what?

What the fuck are you on about you retarded faggot?

>.tar.gz
fucking larper

/thread

1. GRANT OF LICENSE.
The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed as follows:
(a) Installation and Use.
David Capello grants you the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computer running a validly licensed copy of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed.
(b) Backup Copies.
You may also make copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT as may be necessary for backup and archival purposes.

2. DESCRIPTION OF OTHER RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS.
(a) Maintenance of Copyright Notices.
You must not remove or alter any copyright notices on any and all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
(b) Distribution.
You may not distribute copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to third parties. Evaluation versions available for download from David Capello's websites may be freely distributed.
(c) Prohibition on Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, and Disassembly.
You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, except and only to the extent that such activity is expressly permitted by applicable law notwithstanding this limitation.
(d) Rental.
You may not rent, lease, or lend the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
(e) Support Services.
David Capello may provide you with support services related to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT ("Support Services"). Any supplemental software code provided to you as part of the Support Services shall be considered part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and subject to the terms and conditions of this EULA.
(f) Compliance with Applicable Laws.
You must comply with all applicable laws regarding use of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
(g) Source code.
You may only compile and modify the source code of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT for your own personal purpose or to propose a contribution to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.


Doesn't look free as in freedom to me.

don't quantify that

back in my early teens i gave linux a chance becaust eof the proclaimed *modularity*

mfw every other program ended in dependeny hell

Never in my life had any problem with windows other than fucked up hw

I'll selling copies of free software for $10,000 each. How many can I write you down for?
I'm having a one day sale. Buy 10 for only $9,000 each.

>dependency hell
Wouldn't you expect a program which utilizes many modular subprograms to have lots of dependencies?

apparently it was GPL, but not anymore:
github.com/aseprite/aseprite/commit/5ecc356a41c8e29977f8608d8826489d24f5fa6c

even official shit from M$ does nowadays.

github.com/aseprite/aseprite

Here's the code, most licensed under GPL. That freedom enough for ya cunt?