Almost all Linux users are slaves to repositories meanwhile Windows users can download an .exe file and get the latest version, bleeding edge beta version, or an ancient version of whatever software then want if they have the .exe .
We literally have made habit of frequently changing OS's just to get software we find effective. Solutions have been offered such as distro agnostic pack managers like flatpak and snap, and tools like appimage. However they are primarily ignored in favor of ancient tools like apt-get and .deb.
In Debian/Ubuntu's case apt-get should continue to exist for people who want it and how it saves a lot of space. But developers should be encouraged to take advantage of flatpak and appimage and even tar.gz bundles to prevent software from being chained to particular distros.
thanks for turning my thread from a month ago into a forced meme.
All I need is for flatpak/Appimage my favorite software before I upgrade to the next Ubuntu and to bring back some old programs I use to work with. Apt-get is still a useful tool, devs just need to static link archived versions on github or whatever. It wouldn't make sense to make flatpak or appimage a default.
Grayson Mitchell
My only gripe with Windows is it's very likely an NSA watchdog program in the shape of an operating system. Besides that, I don't really mind using it.
Linux mint is really nice though. I'm considering it as my main operating system eventually.
Some boomer in 2004 made this audio editing software that may still be useful. However it's lost forever. No one will ever be able to appreciate his work or use his software.
:(
Joseph Howard
Build it from source, retard.
Easton Brown
missing dependencies from 2004 that aren't in any repo.
Levi Howard
Build them from source.
Jason Allen
This bait is so bad. What do you hope to get out of this? I don't imagine it being a lot of fun.
Benjamin Johnson
>everything i disagree with is "bait" shut the fuck up cringe faggot
Chase Scott
I don't get what the problem is. I'm not a linux user, but why can't you just keep around old versions of software? Thats what I see on linux systems and even my mac, is there is multiple versions of libraries installed at once. Just don't make your software link to the latest version by default, link only to a specific major version.
Owen Adams
Is that possible or are you trolling?
Jason Robinson
Nope, apart from repositories you can: + use appimage, snap or flatpak + compile yourself
You don't need non repo sources most of the time. GNU/Linux is flexible, get used to it.
William Jenkins
the source for an entire program is 1.4 mb. It's missing a ton of dependencies that need to be apt-getted but can't because they are gone.
The source isn't even the source, it's a goost hunt.
Angel Taylor
>gtk2 >gstreamer >gone ????
Michael Harris
the new version of gstreamer is incompatbie it seems. It requires a few archaic libraries that may be gone forever.
This boomers software could have been forked into a modern successor to audacity. But it died ages ago.
Thomas Barnes
holy shit your fucking retarded
Jackson Howard
Hmm if only gstreamer code was stored in some system that allowed you to look at old versions. It's too bad no open source projects use anything like that though.
Elijah Morgan
*compete with audacity.
There isn't enough FOSS audio editing software. The more competition FOSS software has with itself the better. It'll show we have choice and diversity within free software.
Sebastian Reyes
I'll start using this if you would like it to become a meme
Brayden Gray
Who the fuck told you, that you can't download and run executable on Linux ?
user, with application container technology, literally anything is possible. snapcraft.io/mosaic This is a snap package for NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic is a web browser from 1993. I don't even think GTK existed at this time, yet somehow someone managed to make it work. If your system supports snaps, it should work flawlessly with a simple install command. If someone can get fucking Mosaic running on $CURRENT_YEAR systems, you can get some gay gstreamer-based program to work.
Juan Lee
fucking mods how many times does he need to spam this thread before you ban this faggot
Luis Taylor
>swastika bad Do you know where you are new fag?
Ryan Gutierrez
>what is executing a binary by itself in bash by doing ./binary >what is AUR
Gavin Richardson
>need to be apt-getted ??? I don't use linux but can't you build anything from source if you can find the source? you don't need a package manager to baby you.
Brandon Long
Of course it is possible, why wouldn't be?
Just look for the dependencies needed, download their source, and build them.
Wyatt Cooper
>> 72559413 >making specific things easier makes other things impossible stupid bait why am I even bumping this I guess if anyone is retarded enough to fall for it they might see this
Jeremiah Diaz
That or Ubuntu MATE; it depends. Linux Mint 18.3 was the fucking bomb. Ubuntu MATE 18.04 worked better for me after
Nicholas Davis
>snapcraft.io/mosaic I know it's possible with flatpak, appimages and snaps. The whole idea is that it's too late.
They failed to archive 99% of Linux software that has ever existed.
Charles Fisher
>sudo vim /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist Wow, that was hard.
Camden Ross
No you can't the source isn't actually the source, it's missing tons of dependencies that you are expected to "yum or apt-get ect...
Mason Ortiz
if you really needed this softwares you could just install a time-appropriate distro and get the version of the libraries you needed from source if their package repos are gone then install this gay ass marlin thing
Honestly though it looks gay and less powerful than like audacity
Henry Hill
>the source isn't actually the source, this doesn't make any sense. you don't have to use a package manager to get those dependencies. and how is the source not actually the source?
Bentley Thomas
Oh christ, you again? I already kicked your ass in the last thread. And even after that I was kind enough to give you the *EXACT* commands you needed to set up your own personal repository to install whatever repositories + dependencies recursively to be installed on an offline machine.
And like a retard, you still didn't get it. You have no hope. We maintainers are not bending over backwards for you. Either learn how to use the repositories or fuck off back to M$ winblows
Owen Ramirez
do you think my linus profesor will get mad at me if i just put my vm in my own cloud lol
Isaac Hill
You can ship all dependencies on linux too. On linux you have a well crafted system that manages efficiently all the files and dependencies, on windows you only have the one where everything is self contained and there's no control on what's installed thus risking your system with outdated duplicates of libraries all the time. The .exe one should be always a last resort when the developers will be too lazy to update anything in the future, not the norm. On linux you can choose both and is stupid to say linux is the bad one because it allows you to use the one with proper control on the files installed.
Henry Thomas
THESE THREADS ARE MICROSOFT PAID SHILL THREADS DO NOT REPLY TO THEM REPORT THEM AS PAID ADVERTISING HIDE THEM ASK Jow Forums ADMINS TO *BLOCK* MICROSOFT IP RANGES AS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS SHIT FOR YEARS AND BASICALLY POLLUTING Jow Forums
Isaac Wood
Windows is just as capable of supporting package managers, its just not baked into the idea of the OS like it is with 99% of linux distros.
Brayden Walker
Like...?
Caleb Stewart
I personally use chocolatey and while it works like shit its thousands of steps in the correct direction compared to not having it. The windows store should count too if it wouldn't have play store levels of shovelware and if it gives you some proper control like the ones on linux does. The windows update system should count too but to be honest i don't know how that thing can be so inefficient, something tells me it checks everything recursively each time but i cannot prove it of course.
Matthew Miller
>Go to download software for windows from website >ver 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 available
>Go to download software for linux from package manager >only version 6 available >if i roll back to old version of OS I can get ver 3 >specifically need version 5 to build some software
this happens all the time, it shouldn't be this fucking dumb. Why is it so hard to keep ALL versions in the package manager ?
Michael Sullivan
> chocolatey works like shit scoop
James Hernandez
>They failed to archive 99% of Linux software that has ever existed. I know microsoft's dick must feel great but no need to ridicule yourself this much.
Adrian Harris
Install Guix.
Austin Powell
This is already a thing in package managers but only when there's a good reason, for example programs that need python 2 instead of 3. There's self contained options on linux too and if you want older versions can be done with flatpak and similar and with appimage. A lot of those old installers you mention on windows are saved by third parties or archived in hidden places but are not meant to be used again by the developers over the new versions and are usually not supported at all and the average joe will never touch them anyway.
There's no good reason to risk yourself with very old versions of programs except for games (in this case valve provides a runtime on linux and there's no more compatibility problems than on windows) and if a program is better in an old version is a sad case and you maybe would be better looking a replacement from better developers.
BTW, to be fair i've been more lucky with wine for older windows programs than with windows 10, on W10 i usually need to go through hoops while on wine i just need to configure correctly a bottle and i can even make any program portable.
