who thought it was a good idea to put binaries in one folder, instead of separating them into different ones so shit is actually transparent.
debian, and i assume most other distros, are especially bad at this. i can semi-deal with it in windows (see attached file), as there's less of a dependency hell.
this is making me want to give up on computing. stop dumping shit everywhere.
>who thought it was a good idea to put binaries in one folder, instead of separating them into different ones so shit is actually transparent.
Who cares?
This seems an extremely minor complaint.
addendum: this does not just apply to prerequisites in themselves, but also programs.
>/usr/bin
>/usr/local/bin
Seems pretty transparent. You've also got tab completion and aliases which help a lot.
it also seems like an easy thing to fix, yet this is not widely seen anywhere
not if packages install multiple binaries, or if you seek to use binaries in a portable manner.
>i can semi-deal with it in windows (see attached file), as there's less of a dependency hell.
There should be no such thing on a properly maintained Linux distro since the package should pull in the required dependencies. Also the solution on Windows is for programs to pull in everything as well, but unlike on Linux the libraries, except for system ones of course, aren't shared.
A package manager should allow you to list all files owned by a package so finding all corresponding binaries isn't a problem.
>it also seems like an easy thing to fix,
No, it requires an enormous departure from what has been done for decades, for absolutely no gain that I can see.
>not if packages install multiple binaries, or if you seek to use binaries in a portable manner.
It's your package managers job to keep track of the files installed by a package.
that's why i use nixos
>the package should pull in the required dependencies
this is not always the case, not all software distributes packages made for your distro/package manager.
>A package manager should allow you to list all files owned by a package
point definitely taken, yet i still think there should be more seclusion
i've had a look into nixos, i've had it struggle on lightly specced stuff
>No, it requires an enormous departure from what has been done for decades
look at how GoboLinux dealt with this problem.
If binaries aren't installed to their usual folders then you can just add them to your '$PATH'.
yep, just like i've done in windows. i know the same thing works in linux, i actually got the idea from there. though there still the issue of the binary's default configs, which sometimes exist, which are not in $PATH.
There's a reason why it's sorted like this.
In Linux/GNU it allows easy permission control of who has access to what, compared with /usr/bin /bin and anything that's critical for system boot /sbin and items that are root only /usr/sbin
This also harkens back to the day where these items were stored on different storage mediums.
nixos does not have this issue
my binaries are kept in about 5434 seperate folders symlinked to 5 that actually make up my $PATH
>It's your package managers job
Why not just cut the middleman?
You can extend PATH as you wish and most distros add ~/bin to it by default so you can just throw your shit in there if you wish.
Because the middleman makes it easy to maintain my system. I want to kill myself every time I boot to windows and get a "update now" popup for every fucking program that I open.
>debian doesn't manage binaries in the way i want it to
why aren't you abstracting all of that away by using their purpose built package manager?
how is nix on macos for package manager? brew is getting slower and slower, looking for a replacement
>I want to kill myself every time I boot to windows and get a "update now" popup for every fucking program that I open.
Autism
no idea
Idk many macos users but I've definetly seen a couple profiles on github. Those users don't seem to be very vocal
I'm the op. Just wanted to say that linux is repository slavery.