How do you guys get software that is not in your distribution’s repositories?

      • SorryQuick@lemmy.ca
        8·
        2 months ago

        That’s exactly what the vast majority of AUR packages do already? You can also apply modifications to the compilation process if needed.

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      201·
      2 months ago

      My software, QuickDAV, is not in the AUR. It’s open source, and I release it only as an AppImage, because I am lazy.

      • folkrav@lemmy.ca
        231·
        2 months ago

        I guess we should have added the word “notable”

        I’m terribly sorry, you left the door wide open ;)

        I’m curious, what makes AppImage a good choice for the lazy developer? Is it easier to create?

        • hperrin@lemmy.world
          18·
          2 months ago

          Ouch. xD

          It’s super easy to create. And you distribute it on your own, so it’s basically like an installer exe on Windows. In my mind it’s one step above only offering source code.

        • Samueru@lemmy.ml
          4·
          2 months ago

          I’m curious, what makes AppImage a good choice for the lazy developer? Is it easier to create?

          The appimage is basically just git clone -> make -> make install DESTDIR=/path/to/AppDir -> wget appimagecreationtool and finally appimagecreationtool /path/to/AppDir and that’s it you have your appimage.

          appimagecreationtool being several tools that can create the appimage from an AppDir, like linuxdeploy, linuxdeploqt, go-appimage, etc

          And that on itself isn’t complex either, it if basically running ldd on the binary, then copy those libraries into the AppDir and finally run patchelf to patch the paths in the binaries and libraries, suyu uses a deploy script instead of using those tools, which I’ve recently forked and began expanding.

          I don’t know how easy it is to make a flatpak or snap, but I do know the dev of zen browser hates dealing with the flatpak and iirc right now the flatpak is outdated as result.

          EDIT: Also lite-xl has been making a flatpak for like 2 years and it isn’t ready yet.

      • oldfart@lemm.ee
        3·
        2 months ago

        There’s so much random, useful software distributed only as appimages. But not notable enough for packaging fanboys.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        20·
        2 months ago

        Clearly we need an Arch version of rule 34 and rule 35

        Rule 34a: If linux software exists, it’s in the AUR. No exceptions.

        Rule 35a: If linux software is not in the AUR, it will be made available in the AUR.

        • ulterno@lemmy.kde.socialEnglish
          3·
          2 months ago

          I don’t intend on pushing that one to the AUR. It’s not worth it.
          Maybe I’ll make an AppImage at most.

          I don’t know any formal requirements for it being on AUR, but I just feel like this one does not fit there.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      2·
      2 months ago

      Rpg paper maker

      Though the Linux version is now in a “do not use” state. The developer decided to just make it into a web app because it was only working on Ubuntu

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    668·
    2 months ago

    Native package manager > Native binaries > AppImage > Flatpak.

    Yes, snap isn’t even on the scale.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      591·
      2 months ago

      Not a fan of AppImages myself. For an universal format it has surprising amount of issues with different distros, in my experience. And the whole Windows style “go to a website, download the AppImage, if you want to update it, go to the web page again and download it again” is one thing I wanted to get away from. At least they don’t come with install wizards, that clicking through menus thing was a pain.

      For one off stuff I run once and never need again, AppImage is alright. But not being built-in with sandboxing, repos, all that stuff, it just seems like a step back.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        2 months ago

        They are windows, but the linux version of dll-hell across distros and distro versions makes windows dll hell look quaint.

        If someone had addressed that better it would be one thing, but binary interoperability is infinitely broken, so app image is actually an improvement.

      • Samueru@lemmy.ml
        6·
        2 months ago

        Isn’t the gnome runtime alone 2GiB? You know how many appimages that is?

        Not to mention you are unlikely to only use one runtime.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          101·
          2 months ago

          Then again, loads of apps share that runtime. And if other runtimes have same stuff as that GNOME runtime, the shared parts are on your disk only once. It’s pretty smart in how it works.

          • oldfart@lemm.ee
            7·
            2 months ago

            Ran out of space on a 30GB partition when trying around 10 smallish programs as flatpaks. Runtimes are shared in theory but not in practice.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              1·
              2 months ago

              If you allocate 30 GB for / that seems pretty low these days for a desktop system. If you don’t have much space, it’s always best to go with regular repository packages

              Here someone had 163 flatpaks and it used 8,7GB in runtimes. So I’m guessing the 30GB number is for whole of /.

              I just checked out mine, I have 34 apps and runtimes use 3,1GB

              Runtimes are shared in theory but not in practice.

              I think three runtimes (newest freedesktop, KDE and GNOME) cover 90% of my flatpaks. Then there’s programs that use some EOL’d runtime and never get updated, which sucks

          • Samueru@lemmy.ml
            5·
            2 months ago

            I tested installing some web browers, kdenlive, yuzu and libreoffice and without knowing I ended up with 3 different runtimes and the total storage usage (with deduplication) was 4.79 GIB.

            Meanwhile with 33 appimages that I have (which includes same flatpak apps I mentioned) are using 2.2 GiB.

            It doesn’t matter if they share if in the end they end up using several times more storage than the appimage equivalent.

            • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              1·
              2 months ago

              You should test it out with those 33 installed as flatpak. If you end up with 4.7GB for runtimes, that’s basically nothing these days as far as storage goes for that amount of programs. More you have, more you benefit from shared runtimes. I doubt it’ll be less than AppImages but it’s usually the starting runtime space use that shocks people.

              Here someone tested it with 163 flatpaks and the runtimes used 8.7GB. With the top 5 most used runtimes covering 128 of those flatpaks.

              https://blogs.gnome.org/wjjt/2021/11/24/on-flatpak-disk-usage-and-deduplication/

              I just checked out mine, I have 34 apps and runtimes use 3,1GB

              It doesn’t matter if they share if in the end they end up using several times more storage than the appimage equivalent.

              Well we are talking about two gigs, after all. Unless you’re using an embedded system, it’s not a much of a concern if you ask me. But it is more, true

              • Samueru@lemmy.ml
                1·
                2 months ago

                . If you end up with 4.7GB for runtimes, that’s basically nothing these days

                Yes but that wasn’t the original comment I replied to was about.

                163 flatpaks and the runtimes used 8.7GB

                163 flatpaks using 8.7 GiB means that the average flatpak is using 54.6 MiB.

                That’s good the other time I got this linked: https://tesk.page/2023/06/04/response-to-developers-are-lazy-thus-flatpak/#but-flatpaks-are-easier-for-end-users

                Which is no good as in that example there was 173 flatpaks using 27.66 GiB, average 160 MiB, while in your case the average flatpak is using 91 MiB.

                This is what I have with appimages:

                In this case the average appimage is using 69 MiB, though there is one outliner which is the Steam appimage that I have there (470 MiB) which is an entire conty container with its own video drivers and everything, without it the average would be 56 MiB.

                I know this doesn’t matter these days but once again that wasn’t what the original comment was about.

                Well we are talking about two gigs, after all. Unless you’re using an embedded system, it’s not a much of a concern if you ask me. But it is more, true

                Thanks for the link showing an average flatpak using 54 MiB though, didn’t think it was possible lol.

                WAIT I just took a deeper look at the link, isn’t that guy just showing the runtimes without the applications using 8.7 GiB?

                • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                  1·
                  2 months ago

                  Yes but that wasn’t the original comment I replied to was about.

                  I know this doesn’t matter these days but once again that wasn’t what the original comment was about.

                  I agree, it was just about the size differences. I just think it’s good to bring up since there’s many confused about the flatpak size use. Often people might want to install some small app and they’re hit with gigs of stuff and come off thinking that’s the same for every app, which would be insane of course.

                  WAIT I just took a deeper look at the link, isn’t that guy just showing the runtimes without the applications using 8.7 GiB?

                  Yes it’s specifically comparing runtimes. Same for my number, I was calculating how much the runtimes used.

    • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
      8·
      2 months ago

      I’m a technically savvy but new to Linux user who installed Mint as my primary OS about a month ago. So far I’ve used Flatpaks and AppImages without any issue and haven’t come across snaps. Would you explain the differences and why I would care about one over another?

      • Kevin Noodle@lemmy.world
        4·
        2 months ago

        At the end of the day, they’re just different ways of reaching the same goal: universal packages for Linux. I personally use them interchangeably depending on the application and use case.

        There are some packages that definitely work better and are intended to be used and installed via your native package manager (if they rely on system libraries and whatnot). But using either a Flatpak or AppImage results in the same experience - in my experience. It’s a personal preference.

      • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
        2·
        2 months ago

        IMO flatpaks are the future of installing linux apps. The comment you replied to lives in the past. System package manager should be for system binaries, not for applications.

        • Schmeckinger@lemmy.world
          6·
          2 months ago

          But I like my applications years out of date and I think its good that every distro has to spend manhours on packaging it individually.

            • Schmeckinger@lemmy.world
              2·
              2 months ago

              I see the appeal for the package manager for a lot of things, but space got so incredibly cheap and fast that duplication is way less of a deal than the effort to make stuff work the traditional way. But im not a real linux user. I don’t like tinkering, I want to download something and it works. And the amazing thing is we can have both. If people like spending time to package something be my guest.

              The funniest interaction I had recently. I downloaded a program that isn’t in my package manager or had any sort of flatpack/appimage so I downloaded it as a deb and it didn’t run because of some dependency. So I could clone the git and build it from source which might have worked, but I was too lazy to. So I just downloaded the windows exe and ran it through wine, which worked flawlessly.

              • meliante@lemmy.world
                2·
                2 months ago

                I don’t like tinkering, I want to download something and it works.

                And this is what’s keeping Linux at bay. Normies are that to the extreme. They want something that is as simple and resilient as possible, they couldn’t care less about the dependencies or even know what they are. They want a program an app and just install it from an “app store” if possible.

  • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
    54·
    2 months ago

    Why not just stick to what we’ve always been doing?

    1. wget something.tar.gz
    2. tar something.tar.gz
    3. man tar
    4. tar xzf something.tar.gz
    5. cd something
    6. ls -al
    7. ./config.sh
    8. chmod +x config.sh
    9. ./config.sh
    10. make config
    11. Try to figure out where to get some obscure dependency, with the right version number. Discover that the last depency was hosted on the dev’s website that the dev self-hosted when it went belly up 5 years ago. Finally find the lib on some weird site with a TLD you could have sworn wasn’t even in latin characters.
    12. make config
    13. make
    14. Go for coffee
    15. make install
    16. SU root
    17. make install
    • merthyr1831@lemmy.mlEnglish
      12·
      2 months ago

      I much prefer our modern package format solutions:

      1. sudo apt install something
      2. open
      3. wtf this is like 6 months old
      4. find a PPA hosted by someone claiming to have packaged the new version
      5. search how to install PPAs
      6. sudo apt <I forgot>
      7. install app finally
      8. wtf it’s 2 months old and full of bugs
      9. repo tells me to report to original developer
      10. report bugs
      11. mfw original dev breaks my kneecaps for reporting a bug in out of date versions packed with weird dependency constraints they can’t recreate
    • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
      2·
      2 months ago

      We should normalize programs that don’t use such exotic and impossible libraries that you have to do anything besides type “make” and “make install” for it to work.

      In theory it’s a no brainer. In practice not so much.

  • RmDebArc_5@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    46·
    2 months ago

    I’m currently on a atomic distro, so how I get my software from favorite to least favorite is this:

    1. Flatpak
    2. Appimage
    3. Fedora distrobox
    4. rpm-ostree
    • u/lukmly013 💾 (lemmy.sdf.org)@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      141·
      2 months ago

      Mine is

      AppImage > Native repos > AUR > Manually compiling from source > Finding an alternative

      I don’t like installing software that doesn’t need to be installed, thus I like AppImage. Pretty portable. That also applies to compiling from source. Yes, my home directory is a mess.

  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    243·
    2 months ago
    1. Compile from source
    2. Find alternative
    3. Deploy in VM/Docker

    If I wanted snap, flatpak or appimages, I would use windows. Shared dependencies or death.

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        14·
        2 months ago

        I don’t like middle grounds in my packages, what can I say.

        Docker containers are treated as immutable and disposable to me, like a boot CD, for each, I write a shell script to generate both a .conf if needed, a docker-compose.yml and run the container.

        They’re plug’n’play separate parts to the rest of the OS, while packages are about integrating nicely with the rest of the OS, in a non-snowflakey, non-disruptive manner.

        I also hate .conf.d folders and always deleted them. One program, one .conf.

    • lengau@midwest.social
      2·
      2 months ago

      Flatpaks and snaps both have shared dependencies, just at a less granular level than debs. OCI images and VMs are pretty much the extreme opposite of shared dependencies.

  • boredsquirrel@slrpnk.net
    191·
    2 months ago

    Appimages are crap too, but at least there is progress with AppMan, repos and that sandboxing solution.

    Snaps are only sandboxed with Apparmor and snapd only allows a single repo (which contained malware multiple times) so get the hell off my lawn XD

  • aesthelete@lemmy.world
    15·
    2 months ago

    I hate fucking snap. It might be enough to make me switch distros if Ubuntu keeps up with it (which I am sure they intend to).

    The continual “you have new snaps” or whatever it was message every time I’m just trying to have a web browser open made me eventually figure out how to install firefox for real on all of my computers.

    EDIT: I think you may have convinced me to try out Debian on my next OS installation.

    • hperrin@lemmy.world
      16·
      2 months ago

      The Firefox snap was the reason I left Ubuntu. (Or, the last straw, at least.) Fedora has been wonderful.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      2 months ago

      Try debian, they improved so much over the past decade, they’re a better Ubuntu than Ubuntu now without any bullshit.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          It used to be really outdated and missing new applications, with a kernel 1 major version behind.

          All that is fixed, they even have good support for new architectures like riscv on par with Ubuntu.

    • Varyag@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      3·
      2 months ago

      They’ve been doing snaps for a few years already so it already seems like they’re keeping up with this bullshit (in fact they’re putting more and more stuff there) It’s already the reason people stopped recommending Ubuntu to new users and instead go for Mint or Pop!OS

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      2 months ago

      Make a script to extract it to /opt/local and make a symlink.

      You’ll end up using it so much and it’s an easier upgrade on your terms.

  • HouseWolf@lemm.eeEnglish
    131·
    2 months ago

    AUR or flatpak.

    Honestly the longer I spend daily driving Linux the more I enjoy using flatpaks…