this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Linux

48009 readers
832 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
1
Why does nobody maintain PPAs anymore? (feddit.uk)
submitted 5 months ago by christophski@feddit.uk to c/linux@lemmy.ml
11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

When I first started using Linux 15 years ago (Ubuntu) , if there was some software you wanted that wasn't in the distro's repos you can probably bet that there was a PPA you could add to your system in order to get it.

Seems that nowadays this is basically dead. Some people provide appimage, snap or flatpak but these don't integrate well into the system at all and don't integrate with the system updater.

I use Spek for audio analysis and yesterday it told me I didn't have permission to read a file, I a directory that I owned, that I definitely have permission to read. Took me ages to realise it was because Spek was a snap.

I get that these new package formats provide all the dependencies an app needs, but PPAs felt more centralised and integrated in terms of system updates and the system itself. Have they just fallen out of favour?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

To answer this question, you need to look at the fact we live in a capitalist society.

What does that mean? It means that at every turn people are trying to make money.

How is that relevant to Linux? Well it's two prong. First you need to look at the fact that the people at Canonical has Microsoft envy and so want to make money. Secondly, you have to look at the fact that the people Ubuntu have Microsoft envy and so designed their walled garden in a manner that uses Microsoft as inspiration.

Okay...? So if you're building a walled garden and the smarter people have no desire for the disk space bloat that said walled garden comes at a cost of, how do you get them to move over other than making the sane, superior and slegacy (shush, I wanted the alliteration) way untenable.

So what am I saying? It's all about shitty walled gardens and inferior software design, coupled with a lack of resources to maintain applications.

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't get the down-votes, Canonical does want to become a walled garden. Money talks.

[–] mcforest@feddit.de 0 points 5 months ago

But is this comment really an answer to this question or just a rant about Canonical?