I already disagree with the first reason. Poor backwards compatibility is a good thing, it does not let tech debt to accumulate too much.
AppImage and containers are just for hiding that tech debt.
AppImage and containers are just for hiding that tech debt.
I'm going to try and phrase this as nicely as I can: I fervently disagree and sincerely hope your opinion is shared only by the smallest minority possible.
The point of computers is to be a tool for people to make their lives better. Being able to run software is better than not being able to run it. The more things a computer can do, the better.
Also, AppImage is great.
The more bugs you can encounter while using a piece of software is not a good thing. Security is increasingly important, running a lot of unmaintained software is a terrible thing for security. UI inconsistencies across software are not a good thing.
I dread the day I will encounter the Linux-equivalent of MS-DOS filenames not being allowed. I hope all such software dies before.
The Windows approach has a lot of downsides you probably don't notice if you're accustomed to using Windows.
Then don't run any software, that's cleary the best solution to avoiding software bugs if you don't actually care about getting anything done.
> Security is increasingly important, running a lot of unmaintained software is a terrible thing for security.
I disagree. Even if a thing is known to be vulnerable, there are ways to mitigate it. Besides, evergreen software just provides more opportunities for bugs as things are constantly reworked and added.
> The Windows approach has a lot of downsides you probably don't notice if you're accustomed to using Windows.
I notice them, they just cause a lot less pain than not being able to use the software I want because it hasn't been curated by a third party for whatever particular distro I'm using.
Or that everyone should run maintained software? I don't know why you're making it so black and white.
> I notice them, they just cause a lot less pain than not being able to use the software I want because it hasn't been curated by a third party for whatever particular distro I'm using.
I didn't find them any less painful than software not working. I've never been so angry about a computer than when using some unmaintained Windows' software.
Because sometimes the software you want to run isn't maintained anymore and all the alternatives are worse for your use case and there's nothing you can do about it. That's just how it is.
> I didn't find them any less painful than software not working. I've never been so angry about a computer than when using some unmaintained Windows' software.
Please explain how "software works with some issues" is somehow more painful than "software doesn't work at all".
One is frustrating for a second, it just doesn't work, second is frustrating for a longer period of time. The total frustration is larger with the latter.
There usually is a better solution than buggy software, at least with consumer stuff. If someone writes a shitty GPU driver, it's probably a better idea to return the GPU than to fiddle it working. At least that's what I think, based on my experience.
One could say that the former is frustrating for infinity because it never works.
> There usually is a better solution than buggy software, at least with consumer stuff. If someone writes a shitty GPU driver, it's probably a better idea to return the GPU than to fiddle it working. At least that's what I think, based on my experience.
Usually, sometimes, maybe. Other times the old software either worked better for your use case or is literally the only option. That's my experience.
The same is true for Docker: having a consistent environment is just very useful.
It might not be the main advertised purpose, but it's the result. Why bother updating some dependency when you can simply not? It makes sense not to, things could break.
[derp]