(05-20-2017, 04:39 AM)Helios Wrote: [ -> ]What the hell? How else would you download software? mail the software writer a flash drive for them to copy their program on to? Also, anybody can host their own repository. Tons of software do this. Enterprise does it as well to keep internal software controlled.
That's because it's all standardized. If you need software installed to a different disk, mount that disk on /usr or something. The point of that is so that software devs can have a reliable place to put files that is the same everywhere. Useful if software interacts with each other. And in any case, flatpak solves users wanting to choose directories anyways, for better or worse. There is nothing actually stopping you from mounting these standardized directories to different places, and is recommended to do so if you so require.
This is actually a valid point, probably the only valid point in your post. It's why non-rolling release distros exist.
Pardon me if I don't believe you.
I don't think you've quite understood what I meant so I'll try rewording it.
I like to download software from a website and then install it from my hard drive rather then installing it directly from a server. This gives you a margin of control which is why I made the compassion to DRM. While it is, possible to install software from a hard drive in Linux I find it a tedious process.
As for downloading software from the internet I probably should've used the word author instead of host. I've never gotten a virus through downloading from websites such as videolan.org 7-zip.org audacityteam.org If I see something I like from cnet I try to find the author's site. It really has been a long time since I got malware though.
those are the reasons why I don't like Linux. In the meantime I'll stick with Windows until something I like more comes out. This is just my opinion though, never been a fan of app stores in general. I like to have a personal collection of software on my hard drive.
(05-20-2017, 05:06 AM)leolam Wrote: [ -> ]This is the first time I've seen someone actually defend the Windows way of handling software.
What's more, most package managers don't even need any connectivity and can perfectly handle offline, local repositories...
I just prefer it. I delved into creating local repositories, but I found it to be a pain to deal with so I rather wouldn't. You said this is the first time you've heard someone defend Windows way of handling software; There's a few posts on this forums recommending Windows but you sure won't see anyone defending it on the Linux forums. I also think most Windows users also prefer websites over repositories since the Windows app store has received nothing but scorn.
(05-18-2017, 07:41 PM)Anti-Ultimate Wrote: [ -> ]There's some ways you could make the dolphin experience better. I posted a suggestion about distributing it as AppImage, but no dev has responded to my threads or suggestion on the issue tracker.
For passthrough and controllers to work you need admin access anytime you launch it though, maybe that's the issue, i wouldn't know.
Late reply is late, but I'm posting this new message to make sure you get it. I too really like appimge's I think they're a lot better then the current system.
A few reasons why people don't like the Windows app store:
- Lots of publishers don't put their stuff on it.
- When publishers don't put their stuff on it, other people come along and do it for them, potentially charging for what would otherwise be free.
- The people who upload other people's stuff don't have much motivation to maintain it.
- A lot of stuff that this doesn't apply to is just shovelware.
- It still has the reputation it earned in its Windows 8 iteration.
I reckon it could become a lot more popular if Microsoft started sinking money into getting official versions of existing software on there, and then ensuring that it's maintained.
Honestly I don't think there is strong hatred out there towards centralized application repositories. Also, even if you download something from the repository, it doesn't mean you have to install it immediately, since I wouldn't be surprised if there was a download only option. Thankfully I never ran into any of the problems that AntiUltimate ran into when I first was relying on Ubuntu when my SSD died on me with its Windows 7 install with it years ago. I just added new PPA's for the software I needed because I realized that Ubuntu's app center had a crappy selection of software, and later just grabbed a GUI based Debian package installed so I could just download .debs and install them like I would use an installer in windows. Now I use Arch Linux, because Ubuntu didn't play nice with my nvidia proprietary drivers, and despite it being rolling release, has been far more stable once I got it setup than any of my experiences with ubuntu and it's different variations. Centralized repositories seem to work really well with Arch thankfully, especially since the software is actually up to date. It may be a pain to compile the latest development version of dolphin, but I doubt they want to host several different package types to all the distros out there and the different package managers they use.
Also, as a side not, Riced i3 is pretty nice, heck, I'm pretty sure one of the first times I saw i3 was in a desktop screenshot from Delroth or another Dolphin dev.
(05-27-2017, 03:24 PM)ThorhiantheUltimate Wrote: [ -> ]Honestly I don't think there is strong hatred out there towards centralized application repositories. Also, even if you download something from the repository, it doesn't mean you have to install it immediately, since I wouldn't be surprised if there was a download only option. Thankfully I never ran into any of the problems that AntiUltimate ran into when I first was relying on Ubuntu when my SSD died on me with its Windows 7 install with it years ago. I just added new PPA's for the software I needed because I realized that Ubuntu's app center had a crappy selection of software, and later just grabbed a GUI based Debian package installed so I could just download .debs and install them like I would use an installer in windows. Now I use Arch Linux, because Ubuntu didn't play nice with my nvidia proprietary drivers, and despite it being rolling release, has been far more stable once I got it setup than any of my experiences with ubuntu and it's different variations. Centralized repositories seem to work really well with Arch thankfully, especially since the software is actually up to date. It may be a pain to compile the latest development version of dolphin, but I doubt they want to host several different package types to all the distros out there and the different package managers they use.
Also, as a side not, Riced i3 is pretty nice, heck, I'm pretty sure one of the first times I saw i3 was in a desktop screenshot from Delroth or another Dolphin dev.
EDIT: I was wrong about downloading.
There
isn't a download only option for Linux is a way to download .deb files without installing them but it works nothing like a .exe for Windows. There's a whole lot of dependencies that you need to keep track of to make sure everything works. Normally packages managers do this for you but they aren't really useful for sorting local files. I consider package manager to be a terrible solution to a problem that shouldn't even exist. Package managers are needed to sort out dependencies for apps and updates. This is all because someone thought it would be a good idea to have apps share library files with one another instead of being sandbox like they are in Windows. Something the guys at appimage are trying to fix.
The benefits of shared dependencies is that the OS is smaller and everything runs faster. But the downside is that apps have to be configured to work for each distro. This is why simply downloading a .deb file and installing it won't work. Your distro will still need to pull dependencies from the repo rendering the .deb file redundant. In short I prefer to download a single file from the venders website, click on it and have it work. That's how I like to install software, driver and even updates. I suspect that's what a lot of people prefer it. I just wish it was an option in Linux as well.
(05-27-2017, 07:29 PM)magmarock64 Wrote: [ -> ]There isn't a download only option for Linux because of the way repo's and dependencies work.
This is wrong. All package managers that I'm aware of can do this. Dependancies included.
If you couldn't, businesses would have a hell of a time maintaining internal repos.
(05-28-2017, 01:27 AM)Helios Wrote: [ -> ]This is wrong. All package managers that I'm aware of can do this. Dependancies included.
If you couldn't, businesses would have a hell of a time maintaining internal repos.
Hmm oh wait I think you're right. you can use command line sudo apt-get download-only to download what you need but there's no download only button in the software center which is what I thought he meant. My mistake there.
You can download .deb files and the dependencies to get it working if you know what you're doing. But it's not exactly easy or intuitive. Appimge tries to solve this problem.
Linux is generally meant to be lightweight, so it makes sense that people prefer to use shared libraries--why download the same thing multiple times and use up more space than you need to? But I do agree that application managing is more annoying than it needs to be on some Linux distros. Ubuntu isn't a very good distro to use for this reason IMO.