>Lunix is so much more convenient to install programs on!

>you don't have to look up first where to get the program, then download the zip, then unpack it and start the install exe, bro
>bro you just type "apt-get install [yourprogram]" and that's it!
yeah but why is it the version from a couple years ag-
>that's why you don't use the normal repositories bro! they're always outdated bro!
>you look up you program, go to their site or github and then either download it from there or add their repo to your repositories in your os and then install it bro!

Attached: 145848787857.png (500x494, 269K)

I can agree with this as a loonixfag
but still generally, package managers are superior to whatever Windows has

Don't install Ubuntu like some kind of peasant then

>cat INSTALL
>follow the instructions to compile and install said program on your machine without adding 3rd party repos
It's not hard unless you're illiterate or has severe ADHD

>It's not hard unless you're illiterate or has severe ADHD
and this is superior to an installer how

desu if the biggest advantage you can pitch someone about using linux is the 30+ seconds of their time to download a fucking executable they’re really not someone that desktop linux in 2019 is for.

Sometimes the package manager just works and sometimes you have to fuck around and add repos, download it manually and compile it yourself. It really depends on what you want to do.
Install a webserver on Ubuntu? Literally copy pasting commands.
Compiling some shit from github on your ricer Linux? Good luck, it either works out of the box or you have to search for 2 hours for a solution for this specific dependency problem. Also, you might break X.

But Windows isn't really better or worse. Webservers might be clicking next instead of pasting commands. Getting random shit to work requires the same amount of blood and tears.

retarded loonixfags can't even see how counter productive it is

That's assuming there's a version there in the first place. I tried installing all the chrome/trannyfox alternatives in virtual machines with fedora, opensuse, mint and manjaro, and it was a clown show on all of them. Linux shills are always presenting the best case scenario where everything just works, because that's the only way they can make it look acceptable. And even in that optimal situation, what are you gaining really? A few seconds at best on a task that you won't need to repeat in years? It doesn't take any time to open the website and find the big download button, or go to the folder where you stored the installers for whichever versions your prefer, having the certainty that they will still work even if they're a few years old.

it's still fun tho

Haha FUCK installing from source. What, you're going to recompile the crap every update?

Compiling is not installing. Its generally much more headache inducing.

Why cant loonixfags agree on a common installer format, like .msi?

There's appimage. I think Deb is enough since anything other than debian/Ubuntu has no reason to exist.

$echo './configure && make && make install' > installer.sh
$./installer.sh
>should work on any decent packages
Jeez that was hard.

The vast majority of software cannot be installed like that.

>pacman -S [your program]
If it's not there
>yay -S [your program]
Wow so complicated

The vast majority of Windows software don't comply with .msi format.
Almost everything you need can be installed in 1 line with a package manager.
If you want the bleeding edge version, any half-decent software intended for Linux desktop is built with GNU Autotools thus those 3 commands are the holy grail.

I can't build chromium like that or wine, vscodium, VLC, etc
In windows, just run the .exe or the .msi and it's done.

>yeah but why is it the version from a couple years ag-
Haha stupid linux users using outdated programs! *opens Microsoft Office 2010*

Open source programs are constantly being updated. If you want the "bleeding edge" packages you can configure your system to use them but they'll definitely contain bugs. Most people don't want the buggy "testing" version of programs (even if it's the newest). People usually want the latest version of the program that is "stable" but how strict people define "stable" is the issue.

Debian considers a package "stable" if it, and all its dependencies, have had no bugs classified as "serious" after several months. This means when you install a package on Debian stable, you're installing a program where serious bugs are non-existent. It might not have the latest features, but it's "stable". The version of Emacs in Debian stable is Emacs 24.5 release in 2015. The most up to date version of Emacs is Emacs 26.2 which was released in April 2019. The cutting edge version is Emacs 27.1 which is in development but you can download it through git. The most recent change was 13 hours ago. You can decide which version of Emacs you want to use. I don't see how more choice is bad.

And takes just 200x as long as downloading an exe. Amazing.

>yeah but why is it the version from a couple years ag-
Ubuntu problems, everybody go home.

Thankfully, I don't need to care about the opinions of users than can't even figure out a typical autoconf, cmake, or qmake build setup.

>yeah but why is it the version from a couple years ag-
arch doesn't have this problem

yes, it has way more problems than only that