Why are directing this complaint against Linux and not Radarr? They could choose to package it for various Linux distributions if they do wish.
And by "out-of-the box support for flatpaks and appimages" I mean: run it inside a sandbox! If I didn't care about stability and security, I'd use windows.
1: Essential libraries fail
2: Documentation missing needed details
3: hostility to inquiry about problems from community
And on. The Linux community is so much better than it was when I first tried it, but the old guard (and new guard that likes gatekeeping) is still there causing a ruckus and getting in the way of people trying to advance Linux.
You misunderstand my complaint. I am not blaming anyone. I am explaining why the user experience is bad. This is a common retort in the Linux community: "but they are to blame, not me!" As an end user, I don't care who is to blame. I just care that Linux is harder to use.
Radarr definitely doesn't represent the status of Linux projects packaging; not providing any package is uncommon.
The vast majority of open source projects provide repositories, application packages, binaries (if one wants the latest-and-greatest version; the base repositories of the most common distros typically have almost anything under the sun).
As a matter of fact, Radarr's twin, Sonarr, provides repositories (https://sonarr.tv/#downloads-v3-linux), and snaps (e.g. https://snapcraft.io/install/sonarr/debian).
For the record, at least in my case, it's certainly not the "vast majority" of applications. The following applications don't have easy to install packages. Even when there is, as in the case of Calibre-Web, Transmission, and NZBGet, they often require CLI configuration and/or intervention.
* Readarr
* Openbooks
* PhotoPrism
* Prowlarr
* Jackett
* FlareSolverr
And these are just the applications I could spot in five minutes.
I've checked several of the programs you've provided, and here's a report:
- Readarr: has docker image(s) in Docker Hub
- PhotoPrism: has docker image(s) in Docker Hub
- Prowlarr: has docker image(s) in Docker Hub
- Openbooks: has docker image(s) in Docker Hub
- Jackett: has native linux binary in the official Github releases
- FlareSolverr: has native linux binary in the official Github releases
- Transmission: it's commonly provided in the Linux distro repositories
Those who refuse to do such a minimal search and/or better look the Github releases page, they definitely deserve to stay on Windows, rather than spreading misinformation.
If a program doesn't to have a package for a given platform (no doubt about those cases), it's a developer's resources problem (and essentially, an O/S popularity one). It'd be ridiculous to say that having to manually install a certain program on Mac is inherent in Mac itself.
You should just be able to install transmission-gtk and be off.
As for the convoluted installation process under Linux, that is on the developer. They can provide packages directly, create a distribution agnostic application, or provide an installer. All of these approaches are in common use under Linux. None of them require the use of the command line. It is also worth noting that the second option is similar to how Mac applications are distributed while the third option is how Windows applications are distributed. The fact that Radarr's developers decided to do something else, something that required the command line, says more about them than it does about Linux.
With respect to user-hostile US approaches, please don't get me started. Windows itself is far from perfect in this respect.
I don't. I expect it and many other applications to remain difficult to install, so I expect most users to remain on PC. I am not levelling blame on anyone or anything. I am simply explaining how the user experience is hostile in Linux.
Almost every Linux program I use is available through a package manager. Installing, updating, and removing the software can be done through a graphical package manager that resembles the Windows Store. In an apples-to-apples comparison, I would claim the graphical package manager is more user friendly since it is focuses upon managing software rather than marketing software, but I can appreciate that opinions will differ.
In the case of Linux, most software is available through the package manager. In the case of Windows, a significant portion of software has to be obtained separately. The typical case involves finding the vendor website, downloading the software, then running a multi-step installer. If the software doesn't seek out and install its own updates, the process of updating software is the same. Removal of the software is usually similar to using a package manager under Linux, but there are cases where dependencies must be sought out and removed manually (e.g. Visual Studio). Modern Linux package managers handle dependency removal automatically.
Then there are the still relatively common outliers. Many Windows programs are distributed as zipped files that must be installed manually. Usually this is a case of extracting the files, yet you have to read the instructions to be sure. There are also going to be the uncommon outliers, with installation processes that resemble that of Radarr. (It happens, though I have only seen it with development tools.)
In my experience, the software management frustrations under Linux come from a limited number of outliers. Ironically, those outliers all use installers that resemble their Windows counterparts.
I don't care about "package managers" Usenet is web for me (google groups), CLI is not an issue; indeed I prefer it, given my history. I find Windows UX/UI to be extremely difficult. I suggest that you do NOT consider Linux to be a competitor to Windows. It really isn't. Windows had been forced to run Linux. In full compatibility. This is supported by Microsoft -- unlike Wine is is somewhat there. If I needed Windows, I would run Windows, and use WSL.
The odd thing here is that Windows "blinked first". The existence of WSL means Linux has won. If I sent you a Linux binary, I would tell you to install WSL and then just run it. I can also send you JVM stuff to run. .NET? Haven't needed to bother with it.
Have I tried many times to adopt Windows? Frankly, no. If it doesn't work with Fedora, I generally just don't care, and move on.
FredW
Just because users have been trained to download .exe's from random, unvetted websites that does not make it any less insane. See android, see iOS (and by now also windows) who all agree how insane that is.
I said windows store is easy, app store is easy, repos are easy. I don't know how you got "10 step CLI process to install" from that and if you just make up random nonsense this "conversation" is worthless.
aura -A radarr
That said, Radarr, being written in dotnet, should be able to package a single executable you can just click, and that process should be even easier with the upcoming dotnet release.
The non-esoteric distros and GNOME[1] recognize it and ship with a software manager akin to an app store. Those install snaps or flatpaks with one click. That's how you'd install Steam and all of its dependencies like Proton.
The problem is that some software authors, like Radarr's, don't believe in the model.
https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/41.0/figures/softw...
You highlight why this will forever remain a problem: letting developers choose to provide a user-hostile install method means that some of them will. The solution here is mandating a simple install method, but I don't think enough distros would get on board with that. Most Linux developers like things just the way they are.
And I don't really blame them. People love to pimp Flatpak and Snap, but nobody ever likes to talk about the issues that portals cause, the horrible rendering issues it lugs along, the lack of molecularity constantly breaking things on xorg/Wayland, the DBUS issues, the extremely esoteric configuration options, the auto-updating (!!!) and so on and so forth.
Apple makes this work because they have hundreds of billions of dollars they can divert to R&D. Linux gets the short end of the stick because it's a game of chicken-and-egg: none of the developers want to work on Flatpak because none of the packagers want to provide packages for it because Flatpak has hundreds of outstanding bugs and an entire community of people like me who remember being promised bigger and better things on Linux, only to have them fall through the ground not even halfway into development.
Simplicity is key. Flatpak, Snap, and all of it's ilk are not simple, which is why it's no surprise that their development is lethargic and adoption is, kindly put, sluggish.
MacOS and App Store models are the worst, most user hostile way to install anything. I like the .exe model best, it offers most flexibility and freedom to the user.
You don't /have/ to, you choose to. Docker provides a way easier path for all the *arr's.
Not to mention removal is equally easy - with windows can you be SURE all the registry stuff is gone?
Right, and? Not seeing how that is 'reasonably complicated'.
As to your specific issue, I just use the container image of Radar on my server, which is what most selfhosters should be using, since it's non-polluting to your local system.
The more I think about, the more I'm convinced that it's an unconscious choices made by developers to keep away non power users.
GUI is a great concept, but at some point, for more advanced operations, terminal simply makes more sense.
Honestly, I speak with many devs. It's a conscious choice. Gatekeeping in the Linux community is off the charts.
For example, Radarr is an extremely popular tool for managing movies. It connects to usenet and torrent clients, as well as indexers and movie databases. It makes maintaining a home movie collection seamless. Radarr is not in major package managers, and requires the CLI for install (https://wiki.servarr.com/radarr/installation#linux). In Windows, I double click an .exe. In Linux I have to follow a reasonably complicated and time consuming installation process, full of opportunities to misconfigure the install. Radarr isn't a super hardcore 1337 program. It's a very common application aimed at everyone who runs Plex. Until a distro has a .exe equivalent for all applications like this, it's just not going to be a competitor to Windows, for users who need more than just a web browser, and those who are not IT administrators.
Bottom line: make it so users never ever, for any reason ever, need to use the CLI. Until then, most of us will be sticking with Windows.