How is this worse than having to go to a different website for every software you want to install, then having to download an execute file and hoping that it is not malicious, and then having to navigate an installation wizard program? And then each program has its own uniquely obnoxious updater tool.
Software repositories are awesome. Having over 50,000 trusted software packages from a single trusted source. Never having to worry that your software installer contained malware. Never having to navigate an installer wizard. Being able to install software just by typing the name of the software. Updating all your software with one updater tool.
Windows users wish they had a software repository, but a windows software repository would be illegal because most popular windows programs forbid software redistribution. The closest thing that windows users have is chocolatey or ninite.
Every piece of software in the software repository is inspected and compiled by the distribution developer. In the windows store is not inspected by microsoft and the software is compiled by each developer. The windows store has a long history of containing malware and scams.
All of the software in the software repository is free of charge. The intention of the windows store is to charge money.
The use of a software repository allows packages to have shared software libraries. Say that both FireFox and Gimp both call on the same library. On a GNU/Linux system, you only have to need to have 1 instance of the library and both programs would access the same files. On windows, every program is packaged with all of the libraries that it references. If 2 programs reference the same library, then you have 2 copies of the same library on your system.
Software repositories are awesome. Having over 50,000 trusted software packages from a single trusted source. Never having to worry that your software installer contained malware.
hey gramma can you download this program you just need to open up the terminal and type some obscure code into it.
How is this worse than having to go to a different website for every software you want to install, then having to download an execute file and hoping that it is not malicious, and then having to navigate an installation wizard program? And then each program has its own uniquely obnoxious updater tool.
Software repositories are awesome. Having over 50,000 trusted software packages from a single trusted source. Never having to worry that your software installer contained malware. Never having to navigate an installer wizard. Being able to install software just by typing the name of the software. Updating all your software with one updater tool.
Windows users wish they had a software repository, but a windows software repository would be illegal because most popular windows programs forbid software redistribution. The closest thing that windows users have is chocolatey or ninite.
is it different from the windows store?
Every piece of software in the software repository is inspected and compiled by the distribution developer. In the windows store is not inspected by microsoft and the software is compiled by each developer. The windows store has a long history of containing malware and scams.
All of the software in the software repository is free of charge. The intention of the windows store is to charge money.
The use of a software repository allows packages to have shared software libraries. Say that both FireFox and Gimp both call on the same library. On a GNU/Linux system, you only have to need to have 1 instance of the library and both programs would access the same files. On windows, every program is packaged with all of the libraries that it references. If 2 programs reference the same library, then you have 2 copies of the same library on your system.
Cries in AppImage :(
When Gramma was of working age, that was how computers worked.
If you wanted a gui, you manually launched windows or whatever from the console.
When gramma was of working age, she had probably never even seen a computer.
When gramma was of working age, the computer was a dude with a slide rule?
Actually, it's more like she was the computer.
But even that wasn't common when compared to the general population.
deleted by creator
as if your average linux user wouldn't use the terminal to change the desktop background.
deleted by creator
#!/bin/bash WP="$(find ~+ -type f -exec mimetype {} + 2>/dev/null | awk -F': +' '{ if ($2 ~ /^image\//) print $1 }' | sort -R | tail -30 | shuf -n 1)" dconf write /org/mate/desktop/background/picture-filename "'${WP}'"lmao
deleted by creator
That is more painful to read than regex.
wdym, this is so easy to read:
https?:\/\/(www\.)?[-a-zA-Z0-9@:%._\+~#=]{1,256}\.[a-zA-Z0-9()]{1,6}\b([-a-zA-Z0-9()@:%_\+.~#?&//=]*)You joke, but that's very straightforward to me.
https, or nothing
://
www., or nothing
1-256 of these chars: [-a-zA-Z0-9@:%._+~#=]
Until you get to a "." followed by:
1-6 of these chars:[a-zA-Z0-9()]
Any line break
0+ of these chars: [-a-zA-Z0-9()@:%_+.~#?&//=]
I mean, yeah it's really not too bad when you really dig into it. But it's still just a mess.
Although your "https, or nothing" is actually "http, optionally s"
That one isn't even completely right. It gets a lot of false positives AFAIK (example:
https://..com). The real thing is even worse.