I think you might be talking about two group of Linux user. I think majority of the user realized that shared dependency is not scalable in the recent couple years, yet there are still a loud minority that oppose dupilicated dependencies that exists in these universal formats.
Finally, I think the three universal package formats provide better sandboxing support than msi. But appx in windows are very much inline with these packaging formats.
Kernel develipers, libraries developers, compiler developers, distro maintainers, mirrors hosters, anyone whose system runs not on few terabytes disk and gigabit internet.
I heard some geniuses put entire graphical drivers into snap/flatpak/appimages.
Different app depends on different version of the underlying softwares. In the old days distro packages apps, however it would cause dependency hell.
Hence with the development in containers, universal packaging format prevails, where each app is packaged with all of its dependencies. so that the system dont need to maintain the dependency of every single app people want to use.
Different app depends on different version of the underlying softwares.
On different ranges of versions. Usually something like “1.2 or newer”. With few exceptions that break ABI every year(looking at you, Boost) or 11 times a month(it is rust, who would have guessed). If everything was as hard as you described, then there is no way for me to play UT2004 back from, you guessed it, 2004. But I did, and all I needed just to install few 32-bit version of libraries and run it with OSS(very old audio api) emulation.
however it would cause dependency hell.
No, task of package manager is to solve dependency hell
universal packaging format
We had 2 universal packaging formats, now we have 5 universal packaging formats and two container types.
where each app is packaged with all of its dependencies.
Which in case of UT2004 means packaged with all exploits back from 2004.
I think you might be talking about two group of Linux user. I think majority of the user realized that shared dependency is not scalable in the recent couple years, yet there are still a loud minority that oppose dupilicated dependencies that exists in these universal formats.
Finally, I think the three universal package formats provide better sandboxing support than msi. But appx in windows are very much inline with these packaging formats.
Explain yourself.
Kernel develipers, libraries developers, compiler developers, distro maintainers, mirrors hosters, anyone whose system runs not on few terabytes disk and gigabit internet.
I heard some geniuses put entire graphical drivers into snap/flatpak/appimages.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Different app depends on different version of the underlying softwares. In the old days distro packages apps, however it would cause dependency hell.
Hence with the development in containers, universal packaging format prevails, where each app is packaged with all of its dependencies. so that the system dont need to maintain the dependency of every single app people want to use.
On different ranges of versions. Usually something like “1.2 or newer”. With few exceptions that break ABI every year(looking at you, Boost) or 11 times a month(it is rust, who would have guessed). If everything was as hard as you described, then there is no way for me to play UT2004 back from, you guessed it, 2004. But I did, and all I needed just to install few 32-bit version of libraries and run it with OSS(very old audio api) emulation.
No, task of package manager is to solve dependency hell
We had 2 universal packaging formats, now we have 5 universal packaging formats and two container types.
Which in case of UT2004 means packaged with all exploits back from 2004.
deleted by creator