OverviewExploreTrending
Nostr Archives
OverviewExploreTrending
elsat14d ago
How do #linux people get their apps today? What is good or painful about this approach? What is a missed opportunity for app distribution on linux? cc @Laser @32e18276…5c68e245 @franzap @4a0510f2…5f574967
💬 79 replies

Replies (50)

Ronin14d ago
I like chocolatey it has all the main apps, it's simple and I think you can wrap existing apps in a choco package.
0000 sats
GHOST14d ago
sudo apt install
0000 sats
elsat14d ago
If you could change one thing about this flow, what would it be and why?
0000 sats
DagzTagz 14d ago
Same
0000 sats
Ronin14d ago
otherwise I like appimages because they are selfcontained and portable. I don't like to have things installed all over the OS. I like standalone or like choco were I can list, it's contained and i say remove this app, and it cleans it all.
0000 sats
jack (n/acc)14d ago
Angry turk’s opinion
0000 sats
Pixel Survivor14d ago
Flatpak/appimages fixed the fragmentation pain, but discovery is still a maze. missed opportunity: a curated storefront with builtin Lightning payments so developers get paid instead of doing open source charity forever.
0000 sats
cadayton14d ago
My preference is AppImage if available otherwise I go with the distro default and as last resort 'sudo apt install'. AppImage works great because I run one main host with numerous VMs serving different functions. I locate the AppImage on one disk shared to all VMs. The one install and execute from any VM instance is the big sell point for me. I'm using Pop!_OS 24.04 mostly and it defaults to using either Flatpak or 'sudo apt install'. An initial pain point for me with Flatpak is it stores the binaries in a unique location. To execute any flatpak installed binary for automation purpose, one has to execute 'flatpak run <appname>'. I think the missed opportunity by most developers is not generating an AppImage for their application. It might just be me but I don't like applications pooping all over my hard disk.
0000 sats
TKay14d ago
I know a lot of people would like apt install. I personally think the best experience is something like Openclaw. Just copy paste a 1 line into the terminal.
0000 sats
Grace and Truth14d ago
apt or flatpak... Or download from whatever source website and verify. Sparrow Wallet has a nice tool for checking downloads. Haven't had much success with AppImage for some reason. Probably missed a step.
0000 sats
Don't Believe The Vibe 🌱🍋🍊14d ago
Curl, brew, npm or apt get. 🚬
0000 sats
Islamic Audiobooks Central14d ago
Flatpak and Flathub have solved the app distribution issue on most distros. People can fight it or come up with something better which I doubt is happening in the near future... maybe Kaiming if Chinese companies invest in it.
0000 sats
Kieran14d ago
Install from source, apt, sometimes snap
0000 sats
DeveRoSt13d ago
Snappy (snap packages), yes it is canonical yes the store is not really open but technically the best solution (from point of security). And it ships possibly to all important Linux Distros.
0000 sats
Gonçalo Valério13d ago
I get it using the distro's package manager. That's it. If something is not there, or I need a bleeding edge version, I use flatpak. Overtime I found that this approach works very well for me.
0000 sats
elsat13d ago
When does it go wrong, if ever?
0000 sats
Awiteb13d ago
I just use nixpkgs, all the packages are hash-verified. Cool
0000 sats
Zapstore13d ago
Hash-verified means a known hash is compared to a computed hash. What is the source of the known hash?
0000 sats
Awiteb12d ago
> What is the source of the known hash? The known hash is manually entered in the package's Nix file. When adding a new package, you specify its source (e.g., Git or crates.io) and initially leave the hash field empty. Nix will then download the source, compute its hash, and error because it doesn't match the empty value. You simply copy this computed hash from the error message into the file to finalize it. Check the nixpkgs GitHub repo. Search for a program's package file to see its hash and the PR that updated it.
0000 sats
Matt 🛸13d ago
I typically go with whatever the app maker recommends. RPM is common. Flatpaks are common. AppImage is less common. Sometimes you get a tarball but that is way less common than it used to be. Flathub (as a flatpak source) has gotten a lot better, but I like to make sure a Dev is the one who actually posted software there or it was done by a trustworthy group. Of course there's some trust there. Can't escape that. Building from source is probably the safest route but it is more time consuming.
0000 sats
Tekkadan 📲🍄🌐13d ago
paru btw
0000 sats
Ľḭṿḙśƫṟãɖãṁṹṧ💫#RunCoreV3013d ago
Slackware user here and a lot already comes with it. And those not I'll build from source or search in slackbuilds
0000 sats
Bill Cypher13d ago
You should check out extrepo. Extrepo search Extrepo add Apt install The coolest thing in linux package management and it gets very little love.
0000 sats
Bill Cypher13d ago
More people should set up repos and get added to extrepo instead of publishing a .deb and expecting us to dpkg -i
0000 sats
⚡tephen12d ago
I learned reprepro and had my own repo (apt get) for a few years. Woowee was upgrading things annoying. Until I got into automation with bash! I mostly build from source, or sometime grab binaries from git if they build for my architecture.
0000 sats
Cykros12d ago
Those of us who haven't taken on the mark of the Debian thank you for this sane practice. The amount of times I have to go digging for actual source distributions because the download page is a deb, a snap, and a flatpak... I get nobody ships txz's but a tarball should ALWAYS be one option.
0000 sats
Cykros12d ago
A package format around tarballs? You mean like, the way the oldest distribution in existence has always done it which nobody could help themselves but to find a worse way to do things??
0000 sats
Cykros12d ago
I've literally reverted to using discord in a browser.
0000 sats
Cykros12d ago
0000 sats
Cykros12d ago
Probably half my system is built from source, using slackbuilds. The rest either included or from alienbob's repo. It can be a pain for big stuff. Once in a blue moon it even makes sense to deb2tgz but it can be a little messy.
0000 sats
ChipTuner1d ago
To express my dedication to tarballs 📝 7fd76f2a…
0000 sats
elsat1d ago
Didn’t know you are a oil and gas maxi. Based
0000 sats
elsat14d ago
What one thing would you change about this install approach? Why?
0000 sats
DagzTagz 14d ago
I wouldn’t change anything, I don’t know how to install things any other way
0000 sats
GHOST14d ago
Same
0000 sats
Bill Cypher13d ago
You should check out extrepo. Repo management for apt. Extrepo search Extrepo add Apt install
0000 sats
Cykros12d ago
upgradepkg --install-new Or sbopkg -i Or when you're too lazy to throw together a slackbuild script, ./configure && make && make install I've gotten better about not using that last one so much in my old age though.
0000 sats
Gonçalo Valério9d ago
When a vendor doesn't release the software using one of these methods. Curl bash is very common for example. I usually try to find an alternative.
0000 sats
Zapstore11d ago
What stops the Nix repo maintainers from changing those hashes?
0000 sats
Awiteb11d ago
there is no nixpkgs maintainer, each package have its maintainers. if you just changed the hash to an incorrect one, nix will show you an error and the package won't be built. if you mean changing the source to a malicious source code, other maintainers or anyone else saw the incorrect source, they will report it and it will be fixed. You can also check the package source by running `nix-edit` command. Also not any change on the packages will be chipped to the stable nixpkgs version, it chipped to the unstable first.
0000 sats
Zapstore14d ago
Does that mean blind trust in apt repositories?
0000 sats
Islamic Audiobooks Central14d ago
By default, the repos only contain what the OS maintainers put there, so app updates are no different from OS updates, and both are from the same source.
0000 sats
Ccb7a98…3326f913d ago
Trust should never be blind. Always verify sources and understand the code.
0000 sats
DagzTagz 13d ago
I mean most of it is opensource…. You verify the checksum in your terminal and you verify the code if you know how
0000 sats
Max13d ago
I think apt checks signatures. You only need to be careful when adding a new repo to verify the pubkey there.
0000 sats
DagzTagz 12d ago
I guess I do use dpkg too
0000 sats
Cykros12d ago
I assume you've gotta use pip, at least once in awhile? Or is all of that just packaged up as Debs?
0000 sats
DagzTagz 12d ago
Ahhh yeah well I use pip for my host too
0000 sats
franzap13d ago
I use apt and dnf. They all do some form of verification. Verifying repo pubkeys UX is bad, and there is no second layer of defence (e.g. malware makes it into a repo, not uncommon)
0000 sats
Laser12d ago
the horror
0000 sats