Linux is repository slavery

Linux is dead. Google OS with Zircon and Windows are the future.

I use deb files. U mad, bro?

Git clone
./Configure
Make
Make install
Boy, that was hard!

Attached: 78170874-807F-48ED-8C28-9BB65AC8E5B9.png (390x348, 125K)

>braindead retarded
>windows shill

there's a difference?

This never fucking works

Maybe if you’re fucking retarded. This evening alone, I built a web browsers from source, as well as a WiFi driver. I barely know how to use Linux, but I’m capable of following a manual. It isn’t rocket science.

>t. brainlet

You can't just distribute program files? Linux is open source, you can program it to run any executables, can you not?

In my experience repos that don't bother to upload compiled releases don't bother to make sure it compiles easily either

Yes you can, but OP is mad that the standard, default procedure across all distributions of GNU/Linux is not
>open up browser
>type name of program into google
>go to a download page
>download the .exe file
>double click it and go through a wizard.
all because he can't get over his babyduck syndrome

archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/search/text/Almost all Linux users are slaves/

not gonna lie, you probably are retarded

>you're retarded because you haven't been doing this for 30 years and know all the bullshit problems that constantly crop up like the back of your hand

in my experience, the sort of """people""" who can't figure out how to compile software are also the sort of people who couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel

Man, can you link me with some resources on compiling? A book even? Near every time I try to compile some shit I end up in dependency hell and then when I've tracked down all the dependencies and get it compiled it still doesn't work.

yeah, when it just werks, it's incredibly easy to just type in a few commands and compile something. But it doesn't always work out that way, and acting like it does is completely disingenuous.

When I try to do this it can’t find a make file

t. retard
You don't need repositories, you don't need "distro agnostic pack managers," and you don't need appimage. Literally all you need is:
>and even tar.gz bundles
Every Linux dev uses these. Like, EVERY Linux dev. If a Linux version exists at all, you can get a tarball of it. If you can get a tarball of it, you can install it. They're basically Linux MSIs, except even more widespread for Linux than MSIs are for Windows.
And if you can't get a tarball of it, you can get a zip archive of it, which is the same fucking thing.
And if you can't get a zip archive of it, you can clone a Git repository from somewhere and checkout the latest stable branch.
And if you take any of these steps, get a directory with the source in it, and can't figure out how to build it on your own from there, you shouldn't be using Linux.

You have to ./configure first.
If there's no makefile and no ./configure, look for an install.sh.
If there's no install.sh, look for an install readme.
If there's no install readme, look for a bunch of loose source code files, and compile and link them with e.g. gcc *.
If there are no loose source code files, look for an executable with the same name as the package you're trying to install. If you find it, unpack to /opt/[package], and symlink the executable from /opt/[package]/[package] to /usr/local/bin/[package].
If there's nothing like any of those, fuck you, I don't believe you.

no, because that is in the documentation
There is often user scripts that do everything in a single command

Last time I checked arch had repos.

linuxacademy.com/blog/linux/troubleshooting-configure-make-and-make-install-tutorial/

I only skimmed it but it looks like a decent general troubleshooting guide

aside from that googling the errors, arch wiki, installgentoo wiki, and are your friends (in that order)

archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/search/image/LU55XPpXZ2yQkI-Dv8AJow/type/op/
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/search/text/"Almost all Linux users are slaves to repositories"/type/op/
Autism.

Attached: 1565179477010.png (1000x2809, 1.75M)

This is good cause if you don't want to open source your code.

You may want to check again

Name one program you want that you can't actually get in the package manager

I always see people saying that its unsafe to install software that is not in repository or trying to install software from some other distro's repo, why is that? is it just about testing? what about downloading tar from github and installing that, is it equally unsafe? compared to installing software from other repo?

Uh, what?
I'd be trolled if this wasn't just lunacy.

>double clicks .exe
>just work
fuck linux

Why would you even try linux if you know you're the kind of person who's content to childishly demand that everything just werk

Some people are just kinda stupid.
And most of the time these windows fanboys manufacture issues more than have them.

im so sorry for you if you think making things complicated is something to be proud of, damn even real devs would make fun of it, but since there is no other real alternative well no one can complain about it, right?

didnt know having easier things (even you could make it easier and faster on terminal) was something of babyduck syndrome, tell me more user

Debs work without a repository.
Repositories can be freely added removed.
If dont want to deal with repos you are free to deal with source code.

Arch has the AUR which has pretty much everything.

>I can't compile shit to save my life
>t. brainlet

I'm so confused by this, and everyone's replies.

If you want a thing you can just double click in a file manager, you can have that.

That's simply called a "static compilation", aka an exe. An archive that includes all libraries used with the application, allowing the application to run independent of distro, version of OS, etc.

On linux, an EXE may look like a simple static compiled binary, which you simply run as you've described you would in windows.

You may encounter flatpaks, appimages, snaps etc. As such, I am unbelieveably confused about your criticism that Linux doesn't have an exe. This couldn't be further from the truth, and is a display of a complete misunderstanding of how anything works, not just in regards to Linux, but in regards of operating systems, applications, software itself. What is the complaint?

Repositories just make things easier to install, it's not the only method of running software. This has to be a troll?

And that is why we have packages.
Or its automated like on the AUR /gentoo

>Downloading exe from exe repositories

Maybe not if you're retarded

what's with Jow Forums and daily spam threads? internet explorer shit is bad enough
please off yourself

The reason why it isn’t easy for the user is because programmers are asshole faggots
who for some reason share a majority view that making something complicated for the user is a flag of honor
They want to hold the keys to the kingdom and deride those that they hand it out to

They are awful to work with, horrible to deal with, are out of shape disgusting losers who were picked on as children

Just read this thread. This is why linux will always suck dick. Thinking that making something difficult to use for the average person is a badge of honor.

Neck yourselves

Correction:
> Open browser
> Search for the real website
> Download an installer
> Uncheck all ads and install the "free antivirus" program required to install the main program
> Uninstall the "free antivirus"
> Your pc is now dead because you uninstalled the "free antivirus"

name 1 program

Malwarebytes

I can understand the appeal of having everything on the terminal and the "control" you have on the software, but again was there a real problem with the GUI on macos or w10?

>b-baby duck syndrome amirite fellas?
baby duck syndrome could be applied for the whole thing with designs and user experience like gimp and photoshop
btw gimp was released ten years later after photoshop this could a huge advantage but unfortunately it is beaten by software made from a few years ago

why not having the best of both worlds? at this point it is just laziness from programmers,
also , i prefer clicking gay squares and circles just because convenience
rather than
>open browser
>search original repository
do >open terminal
>type command to install
>something shitted itself
>open tab
>search on forums
>solutions from 2014
>time to read documentation
>finish reading documentation
>solve it after 2 hours
do again
>something shitted itself again
>try to fix it now for the whole day
>somehow managed to install the software,
>suspect that doing everything you did will bring worse problems later
>the software you installed sucks dick and it doesnt even work properly
>last commit was 67 months ago
>go to Jow Forums
>make fun of wintards/macfags just because they have it easier
>"pathethic user you suffer from baby duck syndrome"

Attached: 1567609960996.png (1301x424, 103K)

I prefer
> Opening terminal
> Installing program
Rather than
> Clicking gay boxes
> Getting his computer destroyed because you downloaded the program from a weird ass russian website

>he hasn't read, understood, and modified the source code of literally everything he has ever run.

>>>>/reddit/

I unironically agree.

Although Microsoft will probably push it's own store in the near future. It has already done so with the Windows S edition, which can only install things from its store.

And that's also why Steam has tried to gain some ground on Linux gaming.

OP here, I'm a huge faggot and love cocks.

It’s all shit because it’s made by programmers, who by nature are shit
It’s not hard to understand when you accept reality
Both Winblows and Shiteux, it doesn’t matter

God I wish that were me

Op is correct. Linux is not freedom but a fucking walled garden.

The fuck bullshit did you just type and how to do with a mouse like a normal fucking human?

Most of those were virtually the same as clicking an exe, only faster. And they don't offer to install spyware either.

Or you can just compile from source and get whatever software you want in whatever configuration.

Download dependacies first

Yawn.

Attached: iuselinux.png (485x250, 24K)

>what is Arch Build System
>what is AUR

retarded bait

Likely a problem between the chair and the keyboard.

This should be locked. Janitor?

can we all agree that there are pros and cons to both the windows and linux methods and it all comes down to preference?

Bruh don't even think about using this. It never works and results in you having to open an issue which can take up to month before being resolved.

Gj.

Yes

I’d say there isn’t a ./configure file in quite a lot of source codes

Not every project uses autotools. Projects which don't use autotools tend to rely on makefiles themselves or cmake.

If i want to do this, would you guys say I should uncomment the deb-src lines in sources.list? Will it not work otherwise?

>and symlink the executable from /opt/[package]/[package] to /usr/local/bin/[package].
The funny point here is that /[package]/[package] is true but I am just using an alias in my .bashrc and am done.

>How do I run arbitrary .elf files that I download from the internet?
>chmod +x executable && ./executable is too hard guys!!!

the absolite state of debian babies

>Windows users can download an .exe file

0/10

you can do it exactly the same way in Linux, just with the package being named .deb or .rpm or.run instead of .exe, and also one can use the apple way by just saving apps to the hardrive (app-images)

try

Attached: Screenshot at 2019-09-19 14-48-35.png (466x187, 16K)

True, but you have the ability to.
More precisely, you can check with the community if something seems suspicious, if you don't trust them and if you have any suspicions yourself you can check again.
If you think something is badly implemented you can make your own edits.
Free software doesn't stop you from being stupid, just stops other people from lying to, spying on, forcing users to use their software just because there is no alternative.

Imagine the smell.

>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 .

And Ubuntu users can download a .deb file and get the latest version. And with a PPA repository they can get the bleeding edge beta even easier and even instantly updated to the latest bleeding edge version with a simple sudo apt update.

based

>double click .deb
>it just works

The complaint is entirely irrelevant, it is not like you are *forced* to use the package manager you can just as well grab .deb files and install them manually on a debian based distro, which is exactly what you are doing on Windows.
Linux distros usually have a package manager which, by its nature, can only manage packages which were made available to it.
But doing it "the Windows way" is also just as possible, but as it turns out it is a pretty bad Idea.

No, Linux isn't repository slavery, as it isn't bound to repositories any more then Windows is.

Why is it a bad idea?

When you download an exe it's usually an installer, so not to different to compiling from source. The only thing is that compiling from source usually involves running multiple different scripts in the right order and moving files around. Why aren't there installers in Linux?

> repo slaves

Only if the distro's in the way.

> I have to be able to make install. If I can't make install the distro's in the way

LT

Attached: linus.jpg (620x360, 27K)

Ubuntu is the normie distro, normie

Arch or nothing

Ubuntu has an exe equivalent. .deb files

I use Ubuntu and GDebi and you can't stop me!

>Why aren't there installers in Linux?
There are, deb files can be installed by just clicking on them. There’s a program called gdebi that can do it all but I think even the default applications can do it too

Are those basically source codes that the dev pre compiled?

The only reason it feels different compared to windows, is because almost everyone uses windows, so virtually every program can be put in an .exe format for a windows installer

If almost everyone uses something like Ubuntu, it would feel just as convenient as windows, and every developer releasing something would put them in .deb formats for people to install.

The real problem is that there’s so many different distros and develops can’t release simple install formats for all of them. If you want Linux to feel as easy as windows to just go online and download an executable or zip file then there needs to be a ubiquitous distro that almost everyone uses.

>Why is it a bad idea?
Because, among others:
-Each program you install has to include an entire installer and uninstaller mechanism
-Each program has to include a method to update itself
-Searching for and installing programs is often annoying/time consuming/overly complex eg. installers like Adobe Reader which can install unrelated/unwanted software
-No central authority to block obviously malicious software (although depending on repositories doesn't eliminate the risk of installing malicious software)
Basically, it forces the user to do a lot of things which he shouldn't need to do.

There is a good reason why practically every time the decision between those two models had to be made, this method won out, eg. Android, Iphone, etc...
Microsoft themselves are trying to get rid of it (Windows 10 S), of course they are fucking it up immensely as their "package manager" contains barely anything people actually care about.

Yes, but what do you think do you get if you click on the "Installer.exe"?
Magic?

You don't have to use the repositories if you don't want to. You can simply compile from source and install all of the program's parts and libraries manually if you so choose. The repos make it easier as they prevent things like multiple copies of the same library and bloat. All package managers and repos do is make it easier to integrate software into your system properly.