Yes, the Microsoft style solution is actually what I had in mind. A set of extremely common libraries that follow a standard LTS-style release schedule (so that breaking changes only occur once in a while rather than constantly). On top of that you’d have all the countless other long tail libraries that individual projects need. The standard libraries would be dynamically linked and the long tail libraries would either be statically linked or bundled with applications similar to how Windows applications bundle DLLs.
Developers should also be free to override a standard library with their own bundled version if they need one that is incompatible with the system’s included version.
This would make Linux a hundred times more usable and less prone to autodestruction ( steam nuking the OS, freaking installing python…).
Appimages are the closest thing we have of working .exe files, but it saw almost no adoption and it’s dying because “not secure enough” or some other dumb reason. How hard is it to convert appimages into msi style installers that would unzip the app on some directory, notify the OS it got a new app, add a shortcut and uninstaller program ? I don’t care if it’s not secure, that’s what antivirus softwares are for. Even then, I basically only install cracked software and I didn’t have had a virus in years.
How hard is it to convert appimages into msi style installers that would unzip the app on some directory, notify the OS it got a new app, add a shortcut and uninstaller program ?
I think we can still have the security, integrity, and convenience advantages we have gained from package managers while still having a better approach to LTS releases, shared libraries, and up-to-date applications.
Yes, the Microsoft style solution is actually what I had in mind. A set of extremely common libraries that follow a standard LTS-style release schedule (so that breaking changes only occur once in a while rather than constantly). On top of that you’d have all the countless other long tail libraries that individual projects need. The standard libraries would be dynamically linked and the long tail libraries would either be statically linked or bundled with applications similar to how Windows applications bundle DLLs.
Developers should also be free to override a standard library with their own bundled version if they need one that is incompatible with the system’s included version.
This would make Linux a hundred times more usable and less prone to autodestruction ( steam nuking the OS, freaking installing python…).
Appimages are the closest thing we have of working .exe files, but it saw almost no adoption and it’s dying because “not secure enough” or some other dumb reason. How hard is it to convert appimages into msi style installers that would unzip the app on some directory, notify the OS it got a new app, add a shortcut and uninstaller program ? I don’t care if it’s not secure, that’s what antivirus softwares are for. Even then, I basically only install cracked software and I didn’t have had a virus in years.
You described this almost verbatim: https://github.com/ivan-hc/AM
I think we can still have the security, integrity, and convenience advantages we have gained from package managers while still having a better approach to LTS releases, shared libraries, and up-to-date applications.