I don't think having a managed system for installing software is a bad thing at all, though I'm disappointed the big ones don't support third-party repositories. I do think there should always be an option to do it manually.

Load whatever you want, from wherever you trust, whenever you want.

(Of course, the underlying problem is that shared libraries are actually a bad idea. They were a hack for days when storage and memory was very expensive. But for some reason, Linux still uses them. New languages just compile everything into a statically linked binary, which is wonderful. I can write a Go program on my Windows machine, and with one command, compile it for a Raspberry Pi. Copy it over and it just works. Snap is also a thing that appears to work well.)

PPAs build in environments matching the chosen distributions, so as long as the builds are properly setup and the user chooses the correct one (which is automatic, with the standard tools), dependencies will work out as expected.

The last time I had a discussion about perceivedly broken PPAs with somebody on HN, it turns out that he was abusing this system, by not using the proper suite (distribution).

I'm not sure how this works for Debian (I think PPAs also allow Debian suites), but if there isn't such [widespread] support for 3rd party repositories, then this subject should get more consideration.

Regarding shared libraries, if they wouldn't exist, operating systems would would take an order of magnitude more in space. I'm not a big fan of an 80 GB Ubuntu; if the public accepts that, that's fine, but shared libraries have a specific purpose.

You can manage multiple versions of shard libraries as needed by different applications: see Nix.

I have a problem with iOS not allowing sideloading in a way that's viable for most applications, but I don't see having a default, managed system for installing software as a problem in itself.

There's even a third party that is automating much of this process, because this is a hole that Apple will have a hard time closing.

The AltStore does not require a jailbreak: https://www.engadget.com/2019/09/26/altstore-alternative-ios...

There are ways to sign apps without a Mac/xCode, namely Cydia Impactor. But Apple has very purposefully made this impractical for every day use.

but if you live in a 3rd world country, a macbook can cost as much as a car. it's just not viable.

Not to be glib, but if a person can't afford a used/low end Mac how can they afford an iPhone?

Hell, whatever that process is, I might even use it in a Mac (if I had one), just because I have Xcode so much.

Sure there are other apps but it’s just too much variety. What is out there is good and works.

Maybe I don’t know what I am missing because I never had it.

That applies to freedom too.

No one wants to force you to use other stores.

However, on my ubuntu installs lately, I've found myself having to go with non-repo software for things that are in the repos. Because the repo version is just so far out of date. Version freezes with only security updates means lots of old software. I was loading my Arch configs on ubuntu and things were breaking. Update to current stable version and suddenly things work again. If i was stuck with repos, I would have just not used ubuntu at all.

The problem is not allowing other software. Sure, on Linux installing third party software isn't as simple as your package manager but it is possible and not made more difficult than necessary.

And walled gardens aren't weird. It has always been the default. I can only install console games approved by Sony, Nintendo etc for example. Printer cartridges were even signed against the printer themselves. Companies have always tried to lock you down in some way.

Printer cartridges used to be dumb and replacable by mechanically identical 3rd party products.

> And walled gardens aren't weird. It has always been the default. I can only install console games approved by Sony, Nintendo etc for example.

Those are gaming devices, not general purpose edge computing devices under which smart-"phones" fall for all intents and purposes. Personal computers are a much better reference point.

Frankly I think there’s a reason why no more open model is succeeding — the demand is not there and the app stores provide the utility most people want. I used to jailbreak my iPhone but there’s really no need anymore.

That's an argument against consoles, not in favor of walled gardens.

Really, can you please explain how to install apps on an Iphone direct from the source for free permanently?

And of course on Windows, Linux and MacOS, you can install whatever you like, from wherever you like. Android allows you to side-load apps (but I'd prefer if it made it much easier to do so), whereas iOS makes it both difficult and costly.

Comparing a smartphone and a console is a big stretch

And a console is exactly what Apple has tried to emulate so of course it's relevant.

You could also say that Apple is emulating the printer manufacturers , some practices are similar but there are important differences.

The term is still in use on the Developer options of Settings where you can decide if UWP apps can be installed outside of the Microsoft Store, though I believe they've backed off drastically, so the default is to 'allow sideloading'.

Depends whether you think the handheld thing is an appliance instead of a processing unit.

We only started complaining about limits on installing apps on phones relatively recently in the life of phones and even smartphones.

We still mostly don’t complain about watches, but within a decade we will.

2. iPhone, Palm, others in late 2000s, attempted to kickstart an open app ecosystem where you could save HTML5 apps to your home screen that worked offline and with no marketplace.

All kinds of apps proliferated briefly, I even had a PacMan clone. Those apps still work, and much more is now exposed through APIs than used to be.

Free distribution remains a viable option for most types of apps. Especially for those developers that are just fine with things like Electron as a platform.

Had developers embraced this and pushed the limits, the ecosystem might have tilted very differently. It might still be possible given enough adoption to warrant platform investment.

I'd much rather stick with a walled garden.

Some level of curation is beneficial. Opting out of the curation should be essential.

Buy Android. (or some obscure non-duopoly platform)

I have no sympathy for the ruthlessness of Apple and its dictatorship about no app can have its own App Store like functionality, but it's also disingenuous to put all the blame on them for where we are today.

There were a ton of aggregator sites for software with reviews, or you could just search the web for it, it was pretty easy.

Erm. I developed apps for Nokia and Blackberry without a hitch.

The restricted walled garden became popular with apple. It took off because, although the developer requirements were very constrained (as they still are), there was a very large swathe of users. I was 'forced' to join because my clients were bankers and traders jumping ship from blackberry. Then came ms and goog with their 'ecosystem' of stores.

All the flip-phones where working like this, you could just install any .jar into the phone and it would not complain.