Re: Welcome disruption
-> There are runtimes, archives of common libraries,...
To me this is an indication of failure somewhere along the line. It is with reluctance but also objectivity that I point the fingers at several things:
1. The lack of a "standard" Linux distribution, right down to the shared library level. I did my time searching for rpms with exact version numbers otherwise certain apps would not run. rpmfind was a saviour years ago, and it's still around today. This is the equivalent of "dll hell" in Windows land, so it raises my hackles when I see Linux proponents ignoring that it is alive and well in Linux too.
2. The package managers (all n of them) seem unable to handle all the dependencies from point 1.
3. The number of package managers is a nuisance. If you spend time writing and building a Linux app, you can either:
3a. Provide it in source form, which is not the most user friendly get-up-and-go way of doing things. If i just want to try an app I don't necessarily want to build it, I just want to use it. This is different from providing the source code for the app, which >99% of users will never look at.
3b. Package it up n ways for all the different package managers, and maintain that ongoing. This is duplication of effort no matter how you look at it. However, as mentioned in point 1, there is still the issue of the lack of a standard Linux installation.
3c. Provide snaps/flatpacks/linglongs or whatever else comes next. Each of these has it own drawbacks, as mentioned in the article. I give Liam Proven a nod here for not just glossing over the drawbacks, as though they don't exist. Also a nod to Duke of Source for mentioning the bundled up libraries which become vulnerable over time - these are now outside the normal update loop for the main OS. Your OS may be up to date, but your apps are not.
I know that the Linux community likes to say that choice is a good thing, and in many cases it is. But sometimes choice just causes a lot of duplicated and wasted effort.