News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Thunderbird 102. Parent comment

Re:Thunderbird 102 by rtpg on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @08:39PM (#31915042)
I mean you can put up a `.deb` with a statically linked binary on your download page right? You can also use stuff like App Image right? It's not like nobody has ever put a go binary into a .deb before.

I don't think comparing "state of packages got off of apt" to "state of downloaded installers for Mac/Windows" is an apples to apples comparison.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thunderbird 102 by WatchDog on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @08:58PM (#31915191)
The ancestor comment was complaining about the poor experience of installing a downloaded Linux desktop application.

Yes, the reasons for why it's more complicated on Linux are varied, the fragmentation of the desktop Linux ecosystem might be the other main factor.

However I think comparing the status quo between each OS is fair.

Appimage seems cool, I don't have experience with it, so I can't speak to how well it works.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Thunderbird 102 by rtpg on Wednesday June 29, 2022 @12:20AM (#31916464)
Yep, several projects I know are leaning into AppImage to get around dealing with installers. The biggest problem with AppImage is that it _is_ just a binary, so things like desktop shortcuts don't come with it. AppImageLauncher does solve this issue (and create a "canonical place" to place your programs, like /Applications/ on mac).

I do agree it's fragmented and frustrating where we've ended up for installers. My main critique is more that the state of linux packaging _isn't_ what thunderbird is doing here.

[ Parent | on HN ]