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

linuxmemes

20935 readers
340 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
838
Snap out of it (lemmy.zip)
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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
[–] rain_worl@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago
[–] Trail@lemmy.world 78 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

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

[–] Trail@lemmy.world 32 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hperrin@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks 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 22 points 3 weeks 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 18 points 3 weeks 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 (10 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 68 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

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

[–] 299792458ms@lemmy.zip 36 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Linux From Scratch user detected

[–] Damage@feddit.it 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] InverseParallax@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] WeLoveCastingSpellz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 57 points 3 weeks ago (11 children)

Native package manager > Native binaries > AppImage > Flatpak.

Yes, snap isn't even on the scale.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 56 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 23 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 52 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 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 10 points 2 weeks 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 (3 replies)
[–] RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.works 46 points 3 weeks 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 31 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Native repos > AUR > compile from source > Flatpak

[–] user224@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 3 weeks 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.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)
  1. Compile from source
  2. Find alternative
  3. Deploy in VM/Docker

If I wanted snap, flatpak or appimages, I would use windows. Shared dependencies or death.

[–] __dev@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Shared dependencies or death
Docker

🤔

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] 4oreman@lemy.lol 19 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net 18 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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)
[–] alsaaas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 weeks ago

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

[–] PlexSheep@infosec.pub 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 24 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

AUR or flatpak.

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

[–] pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I try my hand at packaging it for my distro.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dop@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

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

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 18 points 3 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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

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

[–] wesker@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›