this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
837 points (97.5% liked)

linuxmemes

21180 readers
832 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

  • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    837
    Snap out of it (lemmy.zip)
    submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by 299792458ms@lemmy.zip to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
     

    How do you guys get software that is not in your distribution's repositories?

    top 50 comments
    sorted by: hot top controversial new old
    [–] Trail@lemmy.world 76 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    There is no software that is not in AUR. I use arch, BTW.

    [–] Trail@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    But yeah, sometimes I just compile from source, if needed.

    [–] SorryQuick@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    That’s exactly what the vast majority of AUR packages do already? You can also apply modifications to the compilation process if needed.

    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] hperrin@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    My software, QuickDAV, is not in the AUR. It’s open source, and I release it only as an AppImage, because I am lazy.

    [–] folkrav@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I guess we should have added the word “notable”

    I’m terribly sorry, you left the door wide open ;)

    I’m curious, what makes AppImage a good choice for the lazy developer? Is it easier to create?

    [–] hperrin@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

    Ouch. xD

    It’s super easy to create. And you distribute it on your own, so it’s basically like an installer exe on Windows. In my mind it’s one step above only offering source code.

    load more comments (1 replies)
    load more comments (1 replies)
    load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 68 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    If you don't compile from source, do you even Linux?

    [–] 299792458ms@lemmy.zip 37 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Linux From Scratch user detected

    [–] Damage@feddit.it 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)
    [–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago
    [–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

    Ah ... yeah ... totally. I would never use some filthy peasant distro like Mint. No sir! Never never ever!

    [–] WeLoveCastingSpellz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)
    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 57 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Native package manager > Native binaries > AppImage > Flatpak.

    Yes, snap isn't even on the scale.

    [–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 57 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    Not a fan of AppImages myself. For an universal format it has surprising amount of issues with different distros, in my experience. And the whole Windows style "go to a website, download the AppImage, if you want to update it, go to the web page again and download it again" is one thing I wanted to get away from. At least they don't come with install wizards, that clicking through menus thing was a pain.

    For one off stuff I run once and never need again, AppImage is alright. But not being built-in with sandboxing, repos, all that stuff, it just seems like a step back.

    [–] KevinNoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I ran into the same issues, mentally, when trying out AppImages for the first time - but my attitude changed once I found and started using this tool: https://github.com/ivan-hc/AM

    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 24 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    App images are a very Windows way to do things. They bundle everything so they are big

    [–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

    They are windows, but the linux version of dll-hell across distros and distro versions makes windows dll hell look quaint.

    If someone had addressed that better it would be one thing, but binary interoperability is infinitely broken, so app image is actually an improvement.

    load more comments (9 replies)
    load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 53 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    Why not just stick to what we've always been doing?

    1. wget something.tar.gz
    2. tar something.tar.gz
    3. man tar
    4. tar xzf something.tar.gz
    5. cd something
    6. ls -al
    7. ./config.sh
    8. chmod +x config.sh
    9. ./config.sh
    10. make config
    11. Try to figure out where to get some obscure dependency, with the right version number. Discover that the last depency was hosted on the dev's website that the dev self-hosted when it went belly up 5 years ago. Finally find the lib on some weird site with a TLD you could have sworn wasn't even in latin characters.
    12. make config
    13. make
    14. Go for coffee
    15. make install
    16. SU root
    17. make install
    [–] merthyr1831@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 month ago

    I much prefer our modern package format solutions:

    1. sudo apt install something
    2. open
    3. wtf this is like 6 months old
    4. find a PPA hosted by someone claiming to have packaged the new version
    5. search how to install PPAs
    6. sudo apt <I forgot>
    7. install app finally
    8. wtf it's 2 months old and full of bugs
    9. repo tells me to report to original developer
    10. report bugs
    11. mfw original dev breaks my kneecaps for reporting a bug in out of date versions packed with weird dependency constraints they can't recreate
    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works 45 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    I’m currently on a atomic distro, so how I get my software from favorite to least favorite is this:

    1. Flatpak
    2. Appimage
    3. Fedora distrobox
    4. rpm-ostree
    load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    Native repos > AUR > compile from source > Flatpak

    [–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 month ago

    Mine is

    AppImage > Native repos > AUR > Manually compiling from source > Finding an alternative

    I don't like installing software that doesn't need to be installed, thus I like AppImage. Pretty portable. That also applies to compiling from source. Yes, my home directory is a mess.

    [–] 4oreman@lemy.lol 19 points 1 month ago (7 children)
    load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    Appimages are crap too, but at least there is progress with AppMan, repos and that sandboxing solution.

    Snaps are only sandboxed with Apparmor and snapd only allows a single repo (which contained malware multiple times) so get the hell off my lawn XD

    [–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    Just use flatpak. It runs and installs local but still has the benefits of a package manager

    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    I hate fucking snap. It might be enough to make me switch distros if Ubuntu keeps up with it (which I am sure they intend to).

    The continual "you have new snaps" or whatever it was message every time I'm just trying to have a web browser open made me eventually figure out how to install firefox for real on all of my computers.

    EDIT: I think you may have convinced me to try out Debian on my next OS installation.

    [–] hperrin@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago

    The Firefox snap was the reason I left Ubuntu. (Or, the last straw, at least.) Fedora has been wonderful.

    [–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Try debian, they improved so much over the past decade, they're a better Ubuntu than Ubuntu now without any bullshit.

    load more comments (2 replies)
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)
    [–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)
    [–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)
    load more comments (1 replies)
    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    AUR. If it doesn't exist on AUR (very unlikely, but happens sometimes), I make a package for it.

    On non-arch distros, I often use LURE.

    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    Download the sources and build it, like Kernighan & Richie intended.

    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 month ago

    as it should be, nobody likes proprietary vendor-locked formats that get shoved down your throat

    [–] 9point6@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Wow a reference to those Mac Vs PC ads from like 15 years ago

    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] HouseWolf@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

    AUR or flatpak.

    Honestly the longer I spend daily driving Linux the more I enjoy using flatpaks...

    [–] pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

    I try my hand at packaging it for my distro.

    load more comments (1 replies)
    [–] Dop@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Linux noob here, can someone ELI5 why snaps are bad? And how does .deb works?

    [–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Snaps are a standard for apps that Ubuntu's parent company, Canonical, has been trying to push for years.

    The issue that most people have with them, is that Canonical controls the servers, which are closed source. Meaning that only they can distribute Snap software, which many Linux users feel violates the spirit & intention of the wider free and open source community.

    Appimages and Flatpaks are fully open source standards, anybody can package their software in those ways and distribute them however they want.

    .deb files are software packaged for the Debian distribution, and frequently also work with other distros that are based on Debian, like Linux Mint.

    load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] pixelscript@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

    The primary thing I hate about them is that every snap package appears to your system as a separate mounted filesystem. So if you look in your file explorer, you can potentially see dozens of phantom drives clogging up your sidebar.

    [–] lengau@midwest.social 8 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I don't think snaps are bad (and when someone tries to explain why they are, about 85% of the time they say something wrong enough that I suspect they're probably just parroting someone else rather than actually knowing what's going on). It's sad, because if we could get rid of the bullshit we could actually have decent discussions about the benefits and shortcomings of snaps (and how to fix those shortcomings).

    On the .deb front: it's a package format made by Debian. Each archive contains a data tarball, which has the files in the package in their full structure from /, and a control tarball, which contains metadata such as name, version and dependencies as well as pre-install, pre-remove, post-install and post-remove scripts, which are used doing any setup or removal work that can't be done just by extracting or deleting the files.

    The upside of deb files is that they tend to be pretty small. The downside is that this typically comes from having a tight coupling to library versions on the system, which means upgrading a library can break seemingly unrelated things. (This is why you get warnings like this page: https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian) Many third party distributors (e.g. Google with Chrome) take care of this by packaging most dependencies inside the deb, inflating the size.

    Another major difference between packages like debs and rpms and newer formats like snaps and flatpaks is that the latter have confinement systems to prevent apps from having full access to your system.

    load more comments (7 replies)
    load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] nobleshift@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

    I .... I don't have any of these problems....

    Am I missing out on shit? Have I Grandpa Simpsoned?

    [–] communism@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Artix repos > Arch repos > existing AUR package > create my own AUR package

    No need to use any of these flatpak/appimage/snaps when I can just make a package for my distro. Most software is not difficult to package.

    load more comments (3 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›