Software for Linux is a lot more complicated than, say, software for MacOs. Instead of having one simple binary that you update for every version of the operating system, you have hundreds of binaries for many Linux distros, with different package managers, formats, init systems, and even userlands. Many people see this as an issue, and try to use a universal package manager, and then they fight about which universal package manager to use. But, I am here to propose, that not only is the fragmenting of Linux not an issue, universal package managers are unneeded and inefficient.
I disagree with the one, especially with the arguments, that I found weak.
The Article ignores some advantages of universal package mangers and ignores some shortcomings.
As others stated, building from source is not a package manager.
It does not manage dependencies, it can be very tricky, it takes a lot of time.
If you build from source, you have to install dependencies, often manually.
Exotic languages and exotic build scripts can make compiling really time-consuming.
Uninstalling is also very complicated.
That’s what package managers are for.
The stated arguments are only true for free software.
I use some closed source software from time to time and I would like to have it up to date.
Speed of UPAs are a problem, but it is a solvable one.
It is not inherent to UPAs, that they are slow.
It usually arises as trad-off from sandboxing.
From a user’s perspective, I like to have sandboxed applications.
AppImage applications are AFAIK not sandboxed and usually comparably fast.
From a developer’s perspective, I would like to push out updates fast and don’t rely on some package maintainers.
If I publish a new version, I want that all users get that version ASAP.
Debian stable release cycles are just too slow for end-user software.
I am a bit envy of the fast update cycles of android play store packages.
I wish this would be the new standard in terms of fastness (of pushing updates) and sandboxing.
I want to conclude with an example.
GURPS Character Sheet is a software that I like to use.
It did not have a fedora packge and installing via alien or compile the sources were a bit of a hassle.
Thankfully the developer release an AppImage and now updating and installing is just a lot more simple.
I disagree with the one, especially with the arguments, that I found weak.
The Article ignores some advantages of universal package mangers and ignores some shortcomings.
As others stated, building from source is not a package manager. It does not manage dependencies, it can be very tricky, it takes a lot of time. If you build from source, you have to install dependencies, often manually. Exotic languages and exotic build scripts can make compiling really time-consuming. Uninstalling is also very complicated. That’s what package managers are for.
The stated arguments are only true for free software. I use some closed source software from time to time and I would like to have it up to date.
Speed of UPAs are a problem, but it is a solvable one. It is not inherent to UPAs, that they are slow. It usually arises as trad-off from sandboxing. From a user’s perspective, I like to have sandboxed applications. AppImage applications are AFAIK not sandboxed and usually comparably fast.
From a developer’s perspective, I would like to push out updates fast and don’t rely on some package maintainers. If I publish a new version, I want that all users get that version ASAP. Debian stable release cycles are just too slow for end-user software. I am a bit envy of the fast update cycles of android play store packages. I wish this would be the new standard in terms of fastness (of pushing updates) and sandboxing.
I want to conclude with an example. GURPS Character Sheet is a software that I like to use. It did not have a fedora packge and installing via alien or compile the sources were a bit of a hassle. Thankfully the developer release an AppImage and now updating and installing is just a lot more simple.